This is your public forum. We welcome your opinions, which can be emailed to or posted online under the stories at

Readers reacted to the recent commentary by Reid K. Beveridge headlined “‘Spygate’ provides some perplexing questions”

• I hope this guy really doesn’t believe that this kind of thing hasn’t been happening for decades. Call it a continuity of credentials/credibility/national security. Whatever you like. — JJ McGlothlin Jr.

• Is it possible that our various intelligence agencies, knowing that Hillary’s unprotected server had been hacked by God knows who, thought it possible that our enemies would try to derail Trump’s campaign so they would find better use for all the intelligence they hacked from Hillary’s server? If elected, Hillary would have been extremely vulnerable to foreign blackmail, and would have had to make restitution for her pay-to-play Clinton Foundation. At this point, is there any doubt that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians etc. would rather have had Hillary win, rather than President Trump? It seems evident that the Russians did attempt to collude with Trump in order to weaken him in the future, if elected, but the only real evidence of collusion is with the Democrats, Hillary’s campaign, and the Clinton Foundation (Uranium One etc.). A movie of this could never be made because it is too far fetched to be believed. — Chris Wolfe

• The answer to the question posed by Reid K. Beveridge in his recent editorial, repeated twice for emphasis, is simple. The comment of one reporter was spot on: this matter is “Liegate”. Nobody was placed into any campaign by the FBI for political purposes. The FBI used an informant to aid the investigation into one of the most serious crises of our era — the meddling in our elections by Russia. It was a routing law enforcement procedure, and there is nothing even constitutionally questionable about it! — Ken Abraham

Facebook Comment