Mueller outlined 5 instances of Trump obstruction of justice
TO THE EDITOR
In Donna Okeefe's latest opinion piece about the Mueller Report, she has several false and misleading statements. The right and Trump surrogates are trying to peddle this to the public.
In her first sentence, she states that Mueller's investigation found no evidence of impeachable offenses. In fact Mueller outlines FIVE instances of Trump's possible obstruction of justice, which are impeachable. Following DOJ guidelines (which are just guidelines) that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he presents a roadmap for the House to impeach based on obstruction.
As to "collusion", this is not a federal legal term. Mueller was investigating criminal conspiracy with a foreign government to influence our election. Mueller didn't find enough evidence to prove a conspiracy. This begs the question of why Trump and so many associates had contacts with Russians and lied about it. Lost in all this is also Mueller's conclusion, as well as that of all our intelligence agencies of Russian interference in our presidential election to help Trump win. Donna also claims spending more money on investigations, Democrats are not "exercising their responsibilities in Congress." By investigating the most corrupt President in modern history, in fact they are exercising their constitutional duty of oversight which every patriotic American should be proud of.
Column rife with misinformation
TO THE EDITOR
D.M. Okeefe's column "High crimes and misdemeanors and obsessions" is rife with misinformation regarding the Mueller investigation and report. However, I will limit my critique to three issues.
First, Mueller's team was charged with investing whether anyone in the United States was engaged in criminal conspiracy with operatives of the Russian government to affect the 2016 presidential election. Our intelligence community knew that the Russians had influenced our election with ads in social media platforms and other means, and Mueller was charged with investigating whether anyone in the Trump campaign was engaged in criminal conspiracy with them. Mueller concluded that even though members of the Trump orbit met with Russians, he also concluded that the contacts did not rise to criminal conspiracy. "Collusion" is not defined as a crime in the criminal code. Treason was never an issue, since a person can only commit treason by conspiring with the enemy in a time of war. See Article III, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution.
Second, the responsibility of impeaching a president falls solely to the U. S. House of Representatives. A president does not need to commit a crime in order to be impeached. Impeachment is the act of charging a president with egregious behavior while in office. After hearings to present evidence, the Senate then decides whether to convict and remove him from office. Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.
Which brings me to my third point, obstruction of justice. Mueller reserved judgment as to obstruction of justice. Since he believes that he could not indict any sitting president with a crime pursuant to a Department of Justice practice to not indict a sitting president, he could not charge Trump. He stated clearly in his report that he did not exonerate Trump and that when Trump leaves office, either at the end of his term or if impeached and removed from office, he could then be charged with the crime of obstruction of justice, and a court, not Congress, would determine guilt. See footnote 1091, page 178, Volume II of the Mueller report.
With so much misinformation being disseminated regarding the Mueller investigation and report, it is irresponsible for a columnist to perpetuate inaccurate information.
D.M. OKeefe piece
TO THE EDITOR
An opinion column by D.M. OKeefe: Views from the Right printed in the RF Journal Thursday, April 25, 2019, points a "finger of shame" at Democrats who are looking more thoroughly at Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted report. In the piece Ms. OKeefe makes the claim that Mueller's investigation found no evidence for impeachable offenses.
However, here is what FOX News Senior Legal Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano said on the subject: "Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump..."
If it were only me or Democrats in the House of Representatives saying that, Ms. OKeefe and her ilk would be screaming fake news. But Napolitano is a devoted conservative and long-time fixture at FOX News. He goes on to say: "The president's job is to enforce federal law. ...[O]rdering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless, and condemnable."
Ms. OKeefe, I think, fancies herself a shrewd and thoughtful writer; someone who best represents the views of "the right."
Who can condemn Ms. OKeefe for being "shrewd and thoughtful" when promoting her views. But I think being thoroughly honest is more credible. The most honest thing Ms. OKeefe wrote in her April 25, 2019 piece about the Mueller Report is this line: "They can't let go of what they need to be true - the president is a fraud and a crook."
Ms. OKeefe's Views from the Right is intended bias, yet she decries "bias" by Democrats doing the job they are, in part, elected to do. Indeed, they would be doing all Americans a disservice if they stopped their oversight. Impeachment should be regarded seriously; but they cannot back away from impeaching a president who has shown he is unwilling to uphold the rule of law.
Sources: CDT by News Corpse. FOX News Senior Analyst Says Trump's Obstruction is 'Unlawful, Defenseless, and Condemnable'. April 25, 2019. Dailykos.com.
Where do you stand?
TO THE EDITOR
When parents to a newborn are holding their baby who was born without a brain affixed to her brainstem, they are forced with the gut wrenching decision of whether to place her on life support, knowing that she will lead a life of suffering and die an early death, or to let her go. It's not a decision I would wish for anyone. It's also not a decision for which I have any place to insert my personal judgment. Imagine if we told our elderly they had to live out their years on feeding tubes, deemed "do not resuscitate" orders to be illegal and deprived people their freedom to die with dignity.
Shouldn't a mother and father who loved their baby before she was born have the privacy to not have Big Brother Big government dictate what they should do in an already impossibly painful situation? For those who believe the baby must be kept alive by artificial means, modern science, do you also believe that taxpayers should pay for the expense of life in a hospital affixed to feeding tubes and machines to breathe for the baby?
Donald Trump lied to the people of Wisconsin when he described a healthy baby being born, wrapped in a blanket and then contemplated for slaughter. When is the last time you heard of that happening? Ask any doctor, this isn't happening as Trump would have us believe. We all heard about the New York bill and corresponding narratives but didn't hear as much about the existing laws that protect babies or that the law that didn't pass would have been duplicative. We heard the spin on the non-passing of the bill but not the reasons legislators voted against it.
To our members of the Wisconsin legislature; to Shannon Zimmerman, Gae Magnafici, Rob Stafsholt and Patty Schachtner: Where do you stand on Trump's lie? Guessing you all know it's a lie. Are you willing to silently stand by and let the people of Wisconsin be misled? Your voters deserve to know.
Newspapers should publish truth
TO THE EDITOR
D. M. Okeefe's "View from the Right" column was so outrageous, I needed to comment. She used "collusion", "treason" and "obstruction" interchangeably as if they were the same thing. THEY ARE NOT.
Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
Obstruction: the action of deliberately hindering a legal process.
Collusion: illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents.
Okeefe also claims twice that to prove collusion you must have two witnesses. I could only find that in the Bible, Deuteronomy 19:15 requires more than one witness to prove a crime.
Okeefe said, "Impeachment is a condemnation for alleged criminal behavior." No, impeachment is a CHARGE of criminal behavior by the HOUSE which is adjudicated by the SENATE. Impeachment and the verdict are two separate processes carried out by two different bodies of congress.
Okeefe's says Mueller's investigation "found no impeachable offenses." UNTRUE - the report lists several actions of obstruction of justice which is a crime and an impeachable offense, but Mueller did not charge Trump in the report because the Department of Justice (Mueller's employer) has a policy of not charging a sitting president.
Here are a few of the instances of Trump's obstruction listed in Mueller's report: Trump's conduct regarding the Flynn investigation, firing Comey in an attempt to stop the investigation, efforts to fire Mueller, covering up his efforts to fire Mueller, efforts to conceal the reason for the Trump Tower meeting, wanting Attorney General Sessions to take over the investigation, ordering McGahn to deny Trump's attempt to fire Mueller, Trump's conduct toward Flynn, Trump's conduct toward Manafort, trying to influence Cohen's testimony, Trump's conduct toward Cohen.
The report gave all the evidence and left it up to the HOUSE to charge the president, which is the correct constitutional process. If the evidence is not used now, it can be used when Trump is no longer president.
Labeling the column "Views from the Right" does not relieve the paper from the duty of publishing truthful facts and not publishing known incorrect information. It is not the same as a letter to the editor. The newspaper should "fact check" its hired columnists.
Town of Clifton
Climate change propaganda
TO THE EDITOR
Climate change, global warming, global cooling propaganda is as dangerous as it is reckless.
The United Nations is notoriously anti-capitalism, high sovereignty, national sovereignty and intent to destroy the United States, a capitalist society, whose plans hit a road-block - President Donald Trump.
The Paris Accord on Climate Change was an agreement hatched during the Obama administration, December 2015, in which the nations of the world submitted voluntary plans to reduce their emissions. United States volunteered to reduce its emissions at a substantial percentage while India volunteered to increase their emissions and China volunteered to increase their emissions until 2030 whereupon they might level off.
No country is compelled to lower emissions and there's no enforcement mechanism in the Paris Accord. Our negotiator, John Kerry, returned and hit the Sunday TV shows. Basic questions included "how are you going to enforce this?" and "what are you going to do to countries that don't reduce their emissions?" Kerry said "We'll shame them." A shame bomb? Of course, emissions from India and China continue to skyrocket up.
What country on earth reduced its emissions (largely because of capitalism and technology) the most? The USA, of course! We are not running out of natural gas and if we just break rocks underneath our feet, we can extract the natural gas from shale. Fracking. President Trump reviewed the agreement, which imposed a financially unsustainable burden on taxpayers, concluded "this is a bad deal for America," and got our country out.
Schools continue to indoctrinate youth, uninformed students protest via classroom walk-outs, low information activists participate in polls, and these groups share the same demand-the government must blindly accept every false narrative, including climate change histrionics, a hoax.
It would behoove folks to look to the expert on all things climate and environment, Dr. Patrick Michaels. "The surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was a hundred years ago about 9/10th of one degree Celsius. It's not a lot."
The disparity between what's been predicted to happen and what is happening continues to grow. The public is scientifically misinformed.
The greatest threat to our national security is China. Red Storm rising.
'Train pushers' did not respect questions
TO THE EDITOR
I had the unfortunate opportunity to attend the "Hudson-River Falls Passenger Train Update" last week at the River Falls Library. I honestly was hoping to get a balanced presentation of the facts surrounding the train. It did not take me long to realize it was a pep rally for the train supporters.
Although much of the information sent up many red flags (which should be revealed if this idea gets more traction) my main complaint was the manner in which the speakers and train enthusiasts in the audience reacted to any mention whatsoever of facts or questions that did not perfectly line up with their agenda.
We came for the facts. We thought we would be able to ask questions and get honest answers. What we were given surprised all of us. Any comment or question was met with heckling, jeering, dirty looks, and most of all, arrogance on the part of the supporters who could not believe their agenda for a train would have any opposition. Questions and comments from the audience attempting to understand the need for a train going from Altoona to the Twin Cities were laughed at and ignored by the speakers.
Those who emailed the speaker to indicate their opposition were all given the same response: "I respect your opinion. I am sorry my travel needs are different from yours." It was glaringly apparent from the meeting that our opinions were not respected, nor was he sorry in the true sense of the word.
If indeed the train pushers really want to garner support for their idea, I would say without a doubt they went about it the wrong way.