Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Former President Donald Trump has caused so much injury and death to the citizens he was elected to protect, I'm concerned that witnesses and jury members would become targets for the MAGA crowd if his trial was televised live ("Allow court cameras for Trump trials," editorial, Aug. 9). Did Trump die-hards watch the Jan. 6 hearings? No. Did Fox televise those hearings live? No. Do MAGA supporters read the newspapers or listen to anything that might make them question their beliefs? No. Do we need Trump signaling to his cult which witnesses are "deranged" and which jury members need to get death threats, have to move, hire security, lose their jobs? No.

With Trump as a defendant, a televised trial would turn into a reality TV show. Remember the moment at O.J. Simpson's trial, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Trump's lawyers will ensure that there are moments like that, designed to be taken out of context and played over right-wing media. Trump supporters will only see what they want to see.

Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake

•••

So the prosecutors want to hold Trump's trial in heavily Democratic Washington, D.C., while the defense is seeking a change of venue to heavily Republican West Virginia.

Both are showing real disrespect for future jurors.

We all have our biases, certainly. But jurors are carefully screened by the prosecutors, defense team and judge to weed out those whose biases may prevent them from being objective as they listen to the facts of the case.

Is it a flawless system? Of course not. But it works.

The American legal system would fail if jurors were not committed to following the laws and the facts, wherever they live.

Nic Baker, Roseville

•••

Indict Trump in "the middle of a campaign"! What? Huh?

Trump has never stopped campaigning since the day he was elected. His first two public statements made as president were campaigning (and, not coincidentally, both lies). Over half his public appearances while in office were either blatant campaigning or overrun by blatant campaign statements. Trump roughly quartered his time in office between official duties, watching himself on TV or inviting more public attention, golf vacations and campaigning.

Trump and the can't-help-themselves media have been talking election politics nonstop since the 2020 election. Let me repeat, nonstop.

Since he committed most of his alleged crimes to audio, video and social media while (allegedly) committing them (and his behavior in question is ongoing still) of course he does not want to be prosecuted while he is campaigning, which amounts to when he is awake and breathing.

David Paulson, Minnetonka

•••

An Aug. 7 letter writer was absolutely right in advising us that we should "let the process play out" regarding Trump's indictments. It is alarming that so many high-profile legal cases in recent years have been predetermined in the public sphere. My question is, when "the process" plays out, and if Trump is found guilty, will "the process" be respected by his supporters? I'm sure the letter writer has the honor and integrity to do so, but I have little confidence that many of Trump's supporters will as well. The real irony here is that the only reason Trump is in this situation is that he himself has no respect for "the process." His entire political life has been an effort to challenge and undermine the institutions that would hold him accountable and put a check on his quest for power. To this day he rejects "the process" of the 2020 election and continues to lie and mislead his followers. The very real possibility of a constitutional crisis arising because of lack of respect for "the process" by Trump and his supporters looms. Let's all hope that "the process" is strong enough to stand.

Todd Harvey, Northfield

YWCA CLOSURE

Kids must learn to swim regardless

In Tuesday's paper, two letters to the editor were about the Uptown and the downtown YWCA closures ("Leaving us behind," Readers Write). They were written by longtime members, one a self-proclaimed senior, who have long depended on the Y for fitness and community. I had heard that an active swim team serving the city whose goals were "to create a competitive swimming environment in which children can develop acceptance, respect and community with their fellow athletes in pursuit of the YWCA's mission to empower women and girls and to eliminate racism," was disbanding. It called to mind an article in the New York Times from last month that reported:

"Drowning is the leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 4, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Deaths are likely to surge [in July], as they do every July, with children drowning just feet from their parents without a scream, struggle or splash. A 4-year-old at a Texas hotel pool, a 5-year-old in a California river, a 6-year-old at a Missouri lake and a 10-year-old at an Indiana public pool all drowned just this past week.

"And yet, despite calls from the United Nations, the United States is one of the only developed countries without a federal plan to address the crisis. Thirty years of progress in decreasing the number of drowning deaths in the country appears to have plateaued, and disparities in deaths among some racial groups have worsened."

My son took his first swim lessons at the downtown location when he was 3 months old. It was known to be a place where babies and young children could learn to swim.

It is sad to see fitness facilities and pools that have so much to offer the community close when the needs are so great.

Susan Kaercher Meyers, Hudson, Wis.

MINING

How many refutations do you need?

Dear Gov. Tim Walz,

Congratulations on a very impressive legislative session! I am hoping that you will now extend your string of successes by moving on from PolyMet. I'm guessing the recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision might provide a little extra motivation ("NorthMet mine is dealt another blow," Aug. 3).

If I were you, I would be extremely concerned that Minnesota courts continue, time and time again, to say that your agencies are not doing their job. For the Supreme Court to slap the wrist of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for hiding federal concerns about PolyMet from the public, as well as failing to document whether those concerns were addressed, should be a cause for concern. In addition, in the concurrence to the court's opinion (signed by five of the seven justices), we have this: "I write separately to emphasize the importance of the Fond du Lac Band's water quality standards, and to highlight the serious disservice that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did to the Band." Is that how you want the Minnesota Supreme Court to view your agency in regard to tribal sovereignty? I surely do not think so. Who is giving you the bad advice to stick with PolyMet and ignore the concerns of the federal government as well as a host of Minnesota environmental groups?

I see that the MPCA is still represented by Holland & Hart, a very large Rocky Mountain-based law firm with close ties to the mining industry. As of December 2022, the taxpayers of Minnesota have shelled out more than $6 million to this firm, and for what? More of the same bad advice and strategy. PolyMet, as Minnesota courts have recognized time and time again, is a deeply flawed project that puts precious water, air and land at risk. It is time to move on from PolyMet. Please, do not wait for another court opinion to point out what your agencies are doing wrong.

Thom Haines, Eden Prairie