Heights reader says Mueller Report was fraudulent, waste of money
To the Editor:
The KDH editorial on Thursday May 30, reads, “Mueller should have spoken up several weeks ago.”
I agree; then we would have known several weeks earlier what a bureaucratic fraud the long-awaited and very expensive “Mueller Report” really is.
After listening to Mr. Mueller’s nine-minute and forty-seven second rambling comments on findings of the Mueller Report, and how it was received by the press and the United States Attorney General, I realized that Mr. Mueller was asking for a “Mulligan.”
Google and Siri define a Mulligan much the same: “A mulligan is a second chance to perform an action, usually after the first chance went wrong through bad luck or a blunder.
“Its best-known meaning is in golf, whereby a player is informally allowed to replay a stroke, even though this is against the formal rules of golf.”
Honestly, I cannot think of a better description of Mr. Mueller’s self-called press conference, his attempt to side-step further questions and that “he had nothing beyond his written report to add to the public record.”
This is somewhat comedic as the entire almost ten-minute press conference was Mueller’s attempt to explain whether his report suffered from bad luck or a blunder on his part, and to “add to” the public record.
Sadly, he cleared up nothing by trying to explain the true meaning of the weasel-worded “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so.”
What the hell does that mean? This vague wording adds uncertainty to the president’s behavior and is dishonest in my book.
It would have been better to clearly state whether a crime was or was not committed by the president.
The now open-ended Mueller Report has done nothing to heal our country’s political divide. Ironically, the political cartoon adjacent to the editorial referenced above depicts the animal representations of our two political parties in the same heated argument captioned as BEFORE and AFTER MUELLER CLARIFIES.
Another writer suggested that I read the entire Mueller Report. I will not. There is a legal concept regarding the use of “fruit from a poisoned tree.” Wikipedia describes this as follows: Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.”
The discredited “Steele Dossier” was the poisonous tree used as the authority to justify the call for a “Special Counsel” to investigate President Trump. President Trump and his cabinet members were blamed for colluding with Russian operatives to steal the 2016 Presidential election from Mrs. Clinton.
This entire disgraceful, time-wasting, and expensive effort to vilify President Trump was indeed a hoax from the get- go! Mr. Mueller and his team did nothing for us. They did not earn their keep. They should be ashamed of their poor work. Worst of all, they were not honest!
This is against the formal rules of our republic. To paraphrase an old Nursery rhyme I seriously doubt if, “All the King’s horses and all the King’s men can put Mr. Mulligan (Opps, I meant Mr. Mueller) together again!”
George Van Riper