Sir, – The art of the deal. Figure out what the other guy wants, and give it to him.
America should be grateful that he didn’t give Alaska back to the Russians. – Yours, etc,
MIKE SCOTT,
Trim,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/JW53O4XPTJ4EAVNQJDAMD47UOU.jpg)
Co Meath.
Sir, – During his recent tour, Donald Trump personally insulted Angela Merkel, Theresa May and nearly stepped on Queen Elizabeth. Could he possibly be a misogynist? – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL O’CONNELL,
Listowel,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – Yes, a soccer ball was an appropriate gift for a head-the-ball. – Yours, etc,
JAMES DUNNE,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – When the young Donald Trump was attending school, was his homework the subject of random canine attacks? – Yours, etc,
EAMON CORCORAN,
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Donald Trump claims that he misspoke in Helsinki when making the incendiary remark that he saw no reason why Russia “would” have interfered in the 2016 US presidential election (“Trump says he misspoke about Russia at Putin press conference”, News, July 17th. He later suggested that what he actually meant to say was that there was no reason why the Kremlin “wouldn’t” have meddled in US affairs.
However, am I alone in finding the US president’s explanation thoroughly unconvincing?
It seems much more likely that Mr Trump knew exactly what he was saying in the Finnish capital; and, for selfish reasons, simply prefers to take the word of Vladimir Putin over that of the US intelligence community.
His excuse, 24 hours later, of misspeaking was just a feeble way of rowing back from an untenable position in the face of a storm of protest from his own Republican allies. – Yours, etc,
JOE McCARTHY,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – To clear up any confusion, I’d like to make it clear that in any future press conference I would/wouldn’t believe anything that President Trump says. – Yours, etc,
DERMOT O’ROURKE,
Lucan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Donald Trump saw no reason why it would be Russia that had interfered in the election. He meant that he saw no reason why it wouldn’t be Russia. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DURACK,
Killaloe, Co Clare.
Sir, – There is a significant difference between “would” and “wouldn’t” and between “colusion” and “collusion”, although the difference between “impeachment” and “impeached” may only be a matter of time. – Yours, etc,
DENNIS FITZGERALD,
Melbourne,
Australia.