To the Editor:
Re “Breaking Silence, Mueller Declines to Absolve Trump” (front page, May 30):
If all Robert Mueller wanted to do was tell everyone that he would say nothing more to Congress than what was said in the Mueller report, he could have done that by releasing a written statement. Instead, he appeared on national TV to say that and much more.
Why? Because he wanted the full import of his report, especially in regard to not clearing the president on charges of obstruction of justice, to be heard loud and clear.
By doing this he effectively rebutted the exoneration fiction asserted by President Trump and the misleading characterization of his work by Attorney General William Barr. Mr. Mueller may have said nothing more than what he wrote in his report, but saying it directly to the nation gave it a power that his voluminous report could never do by itself.
Ira Belsky
Franklin Lakes, N.J.
To the Editor:
“Decoding Robert Mueller” (editorial, May 30) uses elaborate interpretive contortions to represent the special counsel as a very subtle critic of Donald Trump and William Barr. In my view, we are too soft on Mr. Mueller.
No one can or should fail to admire his staunch moral rectitude or his deep commitment to serve our country or his highly disciplined competence. But he is an old-style hero, a champion of mid-20th-century values in a more complicated age. He grew up reassured, as I was, by the soothing, trustworthy objectivity of Walter Cronkite and similar news gods. We believed in the possibility of achieving objectivity, a notion that in the 21st century seems naïve.
To avoid taking a stand is to defend the status quo. To maintain impartiality in a partisan environment, even in the name of objectivity or fairness, is to support those in power. To hide behind departmental guidelines about indicting presidents based on a prior, entirely challengeable, opinion is a convenient way to avoid confronting a problem.
To fail to challenge Mr. Trump’s immunity is to accept his authority and his policies. To defer to Congress at a time when Congress is politically unlikely to convict is in effect to bury the problem.
Maybe he’s not so objective after all.
Alexander Dunlop
New York
To the Editor:
While I appreciate the analysis provided by the editorial board, let’s not overcomplicate this: What we saw was a call to action. Having done the hard work of serving subpoenas, conducting interviews and writing the report, Robert Mueller has asked what We the People are going to do with it.
So, will we grumble and tweet the same tired outrage? Or will we take the facts that Mr. Mueller gave us to effect change? We the People must read the report — or at the very least the executive summaries. We the People must call on our congressional representatives to act. We the People should demand accountability, transparency and fidelity to the Constitution.
Mr. Mueller did his job. Now let’s do ours!
Daniel O’Brien
Collingswood, N.J.
To the Editor:
Dear Robert Mueller:
I am an ordinary American citizen who would very much like to hear in layman’s parlance about your investigation. I think I understand your reluctance to go before Congress, but at the same time I hope you will understand our deep need to comprehend your report. Most of us are not going to wade through your voluminous conclusions, but at the same time we do not want to rely on 60-second sound bites.
You have given us two years. Now we are asking for perhaps two more days. Is that too much to ask?
Our democracy is in peril. You cannot just leave us and walk off the stage. You must help us understand your conclusions; otherwise we are stuck between volleys of vitriolic accusations from left and right. I beg of you as one citizen to another to help us understand so that we may heal.
Nicole Purslow
Villars, France
To the Editor:
Robert Mueller has served the nation well. His investigation exemplified professionalism, and he laid out the facts in his report. Remarkably, he resisted any public response to the near-constant bloviating of the president about his work.
If Mr. Mueller prefers not to testify, Congress should respect that desire unless he has material information beyond his report, and there is no alternative way to obtain it.
Michael D. Green
Winston-Salem, N.C.
The writer is a professor at Wake Forest University School of Law.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Mueller Spoke. What Did the Nation Hear?
Opinion | Mueller Spoke. What Did the Nation Hear?
To the Editor:
Re “Breaking Silence, Mueller Declines to Absolve Trump” (front page, May 30):
If all Robert Mueller wanted to do was tell everyone that he would say nothing more to Congress than what was said in the Mueller report, he could have done that by releasing a written statement. Instead, he appeared on national TV to say that and much more.
Why? Because he wanted the full import of his report, especially in regard to not clearing the president on charges of obstruction of justice, to be heard loud and clear.
By doing this he effectively rebutted the exoneration fiction asserted by President Trump and the misleading characterization of his work by Attorney General William Barr. Mr. Mueller may have said nothing more than what he wrote in his report, but saying it directly to the nation gave it a power that his voluminous report could never do by itself.
Ira Belsky
Franklin Lakes, N.J.
To the Editor:
“Decoding Robert Mueller” (editorial, May 30) uses elaborate interpretive contortions to represent the special counsel as a very subtle critic of Donald Trump and William Barr. In my view, we are too soft on Mr. Mueller.
No one can or should fail to admire his staunch moral rectitude or his deep commitment to serve our country or his highly disciplined competence. But he is an old-style hero, a champion of mid-20th-century values in a more complicated age. He grew up reassured, as I was, by the soothing, trustworthy objectivity of Walter Cronkite and similar news gods. We believed in the possibility of achieving objectivity, a notion that in the 21st century seems naïve.
To avoid taking a stand is to defend the status quo. To maintain impartiality in a partisan environment, even in the name of objectivity or fairness, is to support those in power. To hide behind departmental guidelines about indicting presidents based on a prior, entirely challengeable, opinion is a convenient way to avoid confronting a problem.
To fail to challenge Mr. Trump’s immunity is to accept his authority and his policies. To defer to Congress at a time when Congress is politically unlikely to convict is in effect to bury the problem.
Maybe he’s not so objective after all.
Alexander Dunlop
New York
To the Editor:
While I appreciate the analysis provided by the editorial board, let’s not overcomplicate this: What we saw was a call to action. Having done the hard work of serving subpoenas, conducting interviews and writing the report, Robert Mueller has asked what We the People are going to do with it.
So, will we grumble and tweet the same tired outrage? Or will we take the facts that Mr. Mueller gave us to effect change? We the People must read the report — or at the very least the executive summaries. We the People must call on our congressional representatives to act. We the People should demand accountability, transparency and fidelity to the Constitution.
Mr. Mueller did his job. Now let’s do ours!
Daniel O’Brien
Collingswood, N.J.
To the Editor:
Dear Robert Mueller:
I am an ordinary American citizen who would very much like to hear in layman’s parlance about your investigation. I think I understand your reluctance to go before Congress, but at the same time I hope you will understand our deep need to comprehend your report. Most of us are not going to wade through your voluminous conclusions, but at the same time we do not want to rely on 60-second sound bites.
You have given us two years. Now we are asking for perhaps two more days. Is that too much to ask?
Our democracy is in peril. You cannot just leave us and walk off the stage. You must help us understand your conclusions; otherwise we are stuck between volleys of vitriolic accusations from left and right. I beg of you as one citizen to another to help us understand so that we may heal.
Nicole Purslow
Villars, France
To the Editor:
Robert Mueller has served the nation well. His investigation exemplified professionalism, and he laid out the facts in his report. Remarkably, he resisted any public response to the near-constant bloviating of the president about his work.
If Mr. Mueller prefers not to testify, Congress should respect that desire unless he has material information beyond his report, and there is no alternative way to obtain it.
Michael D. Green
Winston-Salem, N.C.
The writer is a professor at Wake Forest University School of Law.
Source: Read Full Article