Letters to the Editor

Readers have wildly different views on what the Mueller report means

An aide to U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, holds a page from the redacted Robert Mueller report during a light and mic test ahead of a news conference on April 18, 2019.
An aide to U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, holds a page from the redacted Robert Mueller report during a light and mic test ahead of a news conference on April 18, 2019. The Associated Press

Don’t make it a numbers game

Sunday’s story, “Diversity in Legislature still doesn’t reflect the state,” (1B) made me think: It stated very clearly the disparity between the number of minorities in our state legislature and the number of minorities in our state. Interesting reading, but it reads as if we should be voting for race instead of the interests and opinions of the people we wish to elect to office.

Susan Graves,

North Richland Hills

Charity starts in the White House?

I agree with Cynthia M. Allen about charitable giving. I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day. (April 19, 17A, “‘Beto’ O’Rourke’s uncharitable giving”)

But what about President Donald Trump’s uncharitable giving, and unknown tax returns, and unpatriotic lack of service in our military?

Trump preaches good sermons about his love for America. Yet he will not release his tax returns showing his charitable gifts and his fair share of taxes. He has said it “makes me smart” to avoid taxes, presumably using loopholes.

He brags about his love of the military. Yet he avoided service when he was asked to serve.

It shows character — or lack of it — in how one gives of money, time and self. Please, Ms. Allen: What about the president?

Helen Dement,

Keller

It’s obvious Trump is innocent

I am a conservative existing in a culture that overtly is very liberal. I try to see what point of view each side has, and I usually can come up with an explanation that makes sense. The current major difference in opinions over the results of the Mueller investigation appears to be about:

1) President Donald Trump’s relatively tactless communication,

2) the failure of the far left to value Trump’s commitment to addressing his presidential responsibilities.

Because Trump knew there was no collusion and that the news from the Mueller investigation was inhibiting his ability to govern, I believe his efforts to end the investigation were understandable and legal.

If Trump had been guilty of colluding with Russia, his effort to shut down Mueller would have obviously been obstructing justice and not legal.

Jack Holstein,

Fort Worth

Mueller proved Democrats wrong

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report concluding there is not sufficient evidence to prove President Donald Trump colluded with Russians, and indicating that the Department of Justice cannot charge the president with obstruction of justice, has made Democrats in Congress crazy. It has turned their hopeful investigation upside down.

But they just can’t help themselves. They hold the opinion that since the evidence was not sufficient it could mean that there is sufficient evidence — somewhere.

Democratic logic: Although the report stated it couldn’t prove that 2+2=5, it doesn’t mean it does not. Poor House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler have been on a fool’s errand, aided and abetted by liberal news outlets.

Marshall Stewart,

Fort Worth

Mueller proved the media truthful

The Mueller report exposes and refutes two of the biggest lies pushed by President Donald Trump and his supporters — those being the insidious refrain of “fake news” and the near-evil rant of the press being “the enemy of the people.”

The mainstream media have been getting the facts about the investigation right all along. But I’m afraid the right-wing brainwashing is too strong to be weakened by truth.

Blake K. Wallace,

Arlington

  Comments