To the Editor:
In Scottish criminal courts there are three possible verdicts rather than our two. To “guilty” and “not guilty” is added “not proven.” This has the effect of a not guilty, yet the jury is saying, “There was insufficient evidence, but we believe you committed the offense.” The stigma remains.
Robert Mueller wrote that his investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, rather than Attorney General William Barr’s wording, more favorable to Mr. Trump, that Mr. Mueller “did not find” a conspiracy. It seems to me that Mr. Mueller intended the stigma of that Scottish “not proven” choice.
Mr. Trump may call himself fully exonerated, yet I anticipate that if we get to read the Mueller report itself, we will see a much less favorable verdict.
Steven C. Chinn
Bronx
To the Editor:
As someone who firmly believes Donald Trump is unfit to be president, I have simple advice for the Democratic Party: Put the Mueller report behind you and concentrate on the defeat of Mr. Trump in 2020. Mistakes were made in the 2016 campaign, resulting in the election of Mr. Trump. Learn from those mistakes.
The current president gives the Democrats abundant fodder for an effective campaign. The election is just more than 19 months away. Despite the temporary bump in popularity Mr. Trump will enjoy since the release of the Mueller report, don’t give him more popularity by belaboring the Russian collusion investigation.
Mark E. Horowitz
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
With the release of the Mueller report, so ends the great Russian collusion fairy tale, one of the most brazen political hoaxes and smear campaigns ever attempted in Washington.
Collusion had become an article of faith among those on the left and in the liberal media, a narrative breathlessly advanced by bitter Democrats and a petulant press that couldn’t accept the 2016 election results. Robert Mueller was the messiah who would deliver the goods to topple President Trump, and he was cartoonishly built up to superhuman capabilities by a fawning media.
The collusion narrative was cynically orchestrated to delegitimize Mr. Trump’s presidency and keep his administration pinned back on its heels. Despite the absence of collusion/conspiracy charges, Democrats will no doubt engage in incessant investigations designed to remove Mr. Trump from power. Rather than cut bait, they will continue their fishing expeditions. And untold numbers of Trump-hating Americans will buy what they’re selling hook, line and sinker.
Michael J. DiStefano
Jamestown, R.I.
To the Editor:
I think the early press coverage has failed to do justice to what Robert Mueller actually found. Russian interference on President Trump’s behalf has been confirmed, as have the facts that the Russians made approaches to the Trump campaign, which the campaign never reported to the government, and that the Russians promised benefits, such as illegally intercepted emails, which the campaign said nothing about to American authorities.
The Trump campaign people may not have opened the gates to our democracy to the Russians, but they stood by while the enemy came in. They may not technically be conspirators in the criminal sense, but they were collaborators. And now we’re facing another election, in which we have to face the fact that our own president and the people around him are aligned with our enemies against us.
Michael Kurland
Linda Robertson
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “We All, Again, Just Made Fools of Ourselves” (column, March 26):
Contrary to David Brooks’s assertion, many of the “grievous accusations” against President Trump are, in fact, supported by evidence that we, the American people, have seen revealed over the past two years. There is no reason for Democrats to feel shame for their pursuit of the truth in this mess.
How can Mr. Brooks draw conclusions about an investigation without reading the primary source material — in this case the Mueller report? Mr. Brooks cannot have read the report, only what the attorney general has said about it, and, as we know, William Barr is an interested party.
Adele Geffen Eil
Providence, R.I.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | The Debate About the Mueller Report
Opinion | The Debate About the Mueller Report
To the Editor:
In Scottish criminal courts there are three possible verdicts rather than our two. To “guilty” and “not guilty” is added “not proven.” This has the effect of a not guilty, yet the jury is saying, “There was insufficient evidence, but we believe you committed the offense.” The stigma remains.
Robert Mueller wrote that his investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, rather than Attorney General William Barr’s wording, more favorable to Mr. Trump, that Mr. Mueller “did not find” a conspiracy. It seems to me that Mr. Mueller intended the stigma of that Scottish “not proven” choice.
Mr. Trump may call himself fully exonerated, yet I anticipate that if we get to read the Mueller report itself, we will see a much less favorable verdict.
Steven C. Chinn
Bronx
To the Editor:
As someone who firmly believes Donald Trump is unfit to be president, I have simple advice for the Democratic Party: Put the Mueller report behind you and concentrate on the defeat of Mr. Trump in 2020. Mistakes were made in the 2016 campaign, resulting in the election of Mr. Trump. Learn from those mistakes.
The current president gives the Democrats abundant fodder for an effective campaign. The election is just more than 19 months away. Despite the temporary bump in popularity Mr. Trump will enjoy since the release of the Mueller report, don’t give him more popularity by belaboring the Russian collusion investigation.
Mark E. Horowitz
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
With the release of the Mueller report, so ends the great Russian collusion fairy tale, one of the most brazen political hoaxes and smear campaigns ever attempted in Washington.
Collusion had become an article of faith among those on the left and in the liberal media, a narrative breathlessly advanced by bitter Democrats and a petulant press that couldn’t accept the 2016 election results. Robert Mueller was the messiah who would deliver the goods to topple President Trump, and he was cartoonishly built up to superhuman capabilities by a fawning media.
The collusion narrative was cynically orchestrated to delegitimize Mr. Trump’s presidency and keep his administration pinned back on its heels. Despite the absence of collusion/conspiracy charges, Democrats will no doubt engage in incessant investigations designed to remove Mr. Trump from power. Rather than cut bait, they will continue their fishing expeditions. And untold numbers of Trump-hating Americans will buy what they’re selling hook, line and sinker.
Michael J. DiStefano
Jamestown, R.I.
To the Editor:
I think the early press coverage has failed to do justice to what Robert Mueller actually found. Russian interference on President Trump’s behalf has been confirmed, as have the facts that the Russians made approaches to the Trump campaign, which the campaign never reported to the government, and that the Russians promised benefits, such as illegally intercepted emails, which the campaign said nothing about to American authorities.
The Trump campaign people may not have opened the gates to our democracy to the Russians, but they stood by while the enemy came in. They may not technically be conspirators in the criminal sense, but they were collaborators. And now we’re facing another election, in which we have to face the fact that our own president and the people around him are aligned with our enemies against us.
Michael Kurland
Linda Robertson
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “We All, Again, Just Made Fools of Ourselves” (column, March 26):
Contrary to David Brooks’s assertion, many of the “grievous accusations” against President Trump are, in fact, supported by evidence that we, the American people, have seen revealed over the past two years. There is no reason for Democrats to feel shame for their pursuit of the truth in this mess.
How can Mr. Brooks draw conclusions about an investigation without reading the primary source material — in this case the Mueller report? Mr. Brooks cannot have read the report, only what the attorney general has said about it, and, as we know, William Barr is an interested party.
Adele Geffen Eil
Providence, R.I.
Source: Read Full Article