Letters to the Editor - Lakeville Journal - 6-27-19

Lime Rock Park: Facts of the matter

It’s troubling these days to read so many false and misleading statements uttered to fit ones own perception of reality or to push a narrative. Alternative facts  can be conveniently applied to bolster the argument.

I live in bucolic Salisbury, a diverse community of agriculturalists, technology developers, retirees, entrepreneurs and more. From my home, I can hear the eagles, chipmunks, wrens and chickadees regardless of the activities going on just a few miles down the road. Nature is ever present. The clatter of the farmer’s tractor or fragrance of the honey wagon do not spoil my enjoyment of the day. It’s my acceptance of the practices within the community to which I now belong that gives me peace. Peace be with you.

The faster the car, the noisier the car. That is not a fact. The state of Connecticut has turned a blind ear to the issue of sound control at the track? That is not a fact. The matter has been litigated in the courts, ultimately the decision of the court will determine the outcome. 

That is democracy. Cars of the ’50s and ’60s we assume must have been less noisy because they are not as fast as a car of today. Well, we all know what’s possible when one assumes. These statements are either woefully uninformed, or plainly dishonest. I can’t know the author’s intent, so I’ll leave it at that.

The swarm of bees with chain saws. Let’s drop the fear mongering / hysteria. A swarm is actually a beautiful thing to see, nature taking care of business. Nothing to worry about there. It’s part of the natural world, and of the community.

Sounds like Lakeville Journal letter writer Josh needs to be a more understanding neighbor of the track and the greater community, not the other way around. Anyone who’s been paying attention over the years already knows the pros and cons of the issue here at hand. My idea of a relaxing day in the country may not be the same as yours, and that’s fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions. It’s best that people learn to get along with each other.

So here’s a fact. Someone chose to buy a home in bucolic Salisbury, knowing full well the activities present in the area, and now complains. Boo hoo, indeed.

Davin Lindy



Did the president commit obstruction of justice?

The U.S. law on “Obstruction of Justice” is codified in a “core” federal statute, 18 USC Section 1512, adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1948. This core statute criminalizes “any person” who acts to delay, prevent or intimidate a witness, withhold documents or other evidence, or otherwise impede or obstruct lawful process or investigation of potential criminal wrongdoing by “anyone.” 

The law calls for the imprisonment of offenders, and it exempts no one, not even a president.

The question before Congress and the nation today is whether President Donald Trump himself obstructed justice within the clear meaning of 18 USC Section 1512. How would he have done this? By refusing to testify, by firing “disloyal” officials (such as former FBI Director James Comey) involved in the investigation of Trump’s, the Trump campaign’s and the Trump administration’s actions  in “the Russia thing,” by tampering with witnesses, ordering them  not to testify and not to turn over documents even when subpoenaed by the U.S. Congress, and then by lying about it.  

Trump and his lawyers argue that 18 USC Section 1512 does not apply to a sitting president, that he has unique “unlimited executive power and privilege,” and that he has full immunity to investigation and prosecution,  as well as the power to pardon himself or anyone else — for anything. No such imagined authority is in fact expressed or implied in the U.S. Constitution, in any U.S. Supreme Court decision, or in any official written statement of U.S. law or policy.  Section 1512 is abundantly clear:  The words “any person” means any person. 

This is why the Mueller Report concluded as it did:  “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 

“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The matter is now in the hands of the U.S. Congress and “We the People.” You be the judge.

Tony Piel