I write concerning an essay by Jay Sterling Silver on the topic of attorney-client privilege. A few paragraphs in, Mr. Silver states: “Normally, if President Donald Trump ever got anything right—even Halley's comet passes along every 70-some years—I might very well not, out of sheer anger, concede it.”

I had to stop reading what might have been a very informative article right there. For an author to admit that he would not concede the veracity of an indisputably true statement made by a person to whom the author has a negative emotional reaction, is to admit that the author accepts and adopts logical fallacies in his writing—the ad hominem attack being one of the worst such fallacies.

If Mr. Silver intended to write something for the edification of his colleagues at the Bar, then his gatuitous editorializing about his feelings concerning the President was misplaced. Believe it or not, there are supporters of the President and his agenda among the readers of this newspaper—even in Brooklyn. What is the point of alienating us with an offensive non sequitur? I care not what Mr. Silver's politics are, and I should not have to wade my way through an irrelevant attack on the President to get to the point of his article.