Editor,
I couldn’t help but read with amusement the letter writer’s all encompassing service as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury, in his self-proclaimed exoneration of Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. If memory serves me, Mueller’s investigation revealed 10 instances of obstruction that likely would have revealed additional supporting evidence of malfeasance.
He chose to decline indicting Trump, not due to some law but due to an Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president can not be indicted while in office. Why did Mueller choose this path? Apparently, Mueller knew that the indictment would not result in a prosecution while Trump was in office and it only followed that Trump would not have access to formal court proceedings to defend himself against the allegations. Seems Mueller had his way of showing his respect for the law while Trump profoundly shows his respect for the law on a daily basis with stalling tactics, frivolous lawsuits, ignoring subpoenas, pleading the “Fifth,” and granting pardons, all trappings of innocence.
Another reminder of interest is “Little Eric T’s” pre-2016 boast that Russia held most of the family debt. Certainly no potential for compromising behavior there.
In the end, I guess innocence and exoneration have different meanings to different people. For some, Trump is innocent and “pure as the driven snow,” for others, he is “guilty as sin.”
Cory David
South San Francisco
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(11) comments
There are 108 pages of "Russian Government Links to and Contacts with the Trump Campaign" in my copy of the Mueller Report. As well as hefty discussions of "Russian Active Measures Social Media Campaign" and "Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations."
The Russian "active measures" ( a term used by Russian security service aimed at influencing the course of international affairs) began targeting the US as early as 2014. They had, and continue to have, tremendous success.
Westy: You are right, of course! And why on flat Earth wouldn’t Putin and his cult do their darndest to support someone like Trump, so easily fooled and manipulated, - if they could? And obviously, they could, and they did! How naïve does someone have to be, not to grasp that?
I must agree with Trump on one account, though, that the 2016 election was rigged, - although not against him, but in his favor. How else can we explain that someone so uneducated, so unfit, and so incompetent, dishonest, unpatriotic, and selfish could make it into the WH, - even with the help of the outdated Electoral College? Has the country dumbed down that much?
Dishonest... seriously?
What would you call someone who deceptively uses a journalist's review of a book published more than ten years ago by presenting that same decade old review verbatim as commentary for a different book released just last month? The reality is this... the author was well aware the journalist passed away before the second book was published. That means the journalist could not have reviewed the book published last month.
It's ironic the author has been so quick in the past to label others as dishonest then that same author uses dishonesty to promote the sales of a book.
Ray: My goodness, this is more than laughable, bordering on the ridiculous. From an e-mail you sent me, it was pretty obvious that you were envious for my book “Dear Editor & Beyond”, but I didn’t realize it was so bad that you had to go public with your sore feelings. The journalist you refer to, and I had a long, close relationship, stretching over decades. When she wrote her initial recommendation of my eBook, I told her that I was working on an expanded edition along the same lines and asked her if it was OK to use her initial review, which she said was perfectly OK. She even read an addition close to the final so far and said there was nothing she would change in her review. Do you find anything in her review that doesn’t apply to the expanded edition?
I don’t think you thought this through very well, Ray. If you had checked it out with me in private, you could have avoided this embarrassment. But thanks for giving my book unintended publicity! An even further expanded edition is coming out on Amazon in a few days. And even that one may not be the last, - while the review you’re so upset about, stays the same! Still valid, and honest!
Jorg… there can be no envy or sore feelings… your situation is too pitiable. You are asking everyone to believe a credentialed journalist would give you a blank check in perpetuity to use that journalist’s reflections for any written instrument that may follow. It’s troubling that you not only used the journalist’s review from 2012, but you have also used a different 2012 review posted by a different writer to promote your book released in October 2022.
You wrote, “If you had checked it out with me in private, you could have avoided this embarrassment.” Well, Jorg, I did contact you privately. Embarrassment? Only the person pirating someone else’s words posthumously should feel a sense of embarrassment. As you recall, I prefaced my private contact with you by recounting the Cherokee legend about the two wolves, one good and the other evil, who fight each other inside all of us. I asked which wolf will you feed? No response. Jorg, it’s clear you intend to keep using two reviews penned ten years ago in a deceptive manner, and it’s equally clear which wolf you prefer.
Ray: Perhaps I should take it as a compliment that you are so insanely occupied with my book!
Didn’t you understand what I wrote in response to your accusation of dishonesty on my part, and why didn’t you respond to my question about what part of the latest edition is in any kind of conflict with the initial review?
And, if that can make you sleep better, the second reviewer read the expanded version of the same book and said that he had nothing to change in his previous review. So, what’s your point?
Your initial e-mail about this non-issue made so little sense that I elected not to waste any of my time on it, assuming that once you slept on it, you would calm down and realize that you overreacted. I guess I was wrong, which isn’t the first time I overestimated someone’s ability to re-evaluate an over-reaction to a non-issue.
Jorg, you asked, “… what part of the latest edition is in any kind of conflict with the initial review?” That would be the 375 pages released last month that were not part of the reviews posted ten years ago.
According to you, sometime between September 2012 and October 2022, two reviewers said that it’s OK to use ten year old reviews verbatim for your new book. These reviewers made their living with their words, but neither reviewer wanted to add any type of update to their 2012 reviews?
You wrote, “Your initial e-mail about this non-issue made so little sense that I elected not to waste any of my time on it…” That’s not quite true. You did respond to my email, and I would be happy to share that email with anyone else along with your response. That email includes links to the original reviews and your current reproduction of them on your blog site and in advertising.
With apologies to Wm. Shakespeare, you “protest too much, methinks."
Hello, Westy
On the topic of Russian contacts and the Trump campaign, you posted yesterday three references to the Mueller report. I added the following to the conversation...
"CBS reported today [Tuesday] that Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin said, “ …we interfered, we are interfering, and we will interfere” in US presidential elections. Robert Mueller noted this interference in his probe. You provided three citations. Where in the first two citations is there evidence of Russian interference linked to the Trump campaign?
In your third citation, you referenced Volume 1 of the Mueller report. In Volume 1, the report describes how the investigation carefully examined links between individuals associated with the campaign and the Russian government. The report concluded, “The Office investigated whether those contacts constituted a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election. In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.” Where in the third citation is there evidence of Russian interference linked to the Trump campaign?"
You did not respond yesterday. Would you care to do so today? You're a daisy if you do!
Hilarious! The Russian collusion delusion against our great President Trump is alive and well. It is amusing these same folks that are continually snookered by the Hillary camp attempt to push debunked fake news narratives because they’re afraid of focusing on the disaster known as Biden’s America Last policies. I guess ignorance is bliss when it comes to the actions of treasonous Biden.
Hi, Terence
Gosh... I was hoping we would see some back and forth re: yesterday's election in the comments section, but it looks like Dr. Emmett Brown has transported some readers backward in time with his Delorean.
There is a lot to say from both sides of the aisle. What can we say about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' win? What are the implications for 2024?
Governor Ronald Reagan's vote tallies decreased from 58% in 1966 to 53% in 1970. He won the presidency with 51% So, DeSantis increasing from 49% in 2018 to 59% yesterday should mean he is primed for a WH run. Right? Not so fast... Governor George Bush upped his vote total from 54% in 1994 to a whopping 68% four years later. Yet, Bush posted only 48% in the 2000 general election. How can we interpret this data in light of the buzz DeSantis has created with a huge gubernatorial victory? I don't know if we can. Maybe the only thing safe to say is that they are all Republicans interested in higher office. What do you think?
Hi Ray, I think everyone is waiting for more ballots to be stuffed and counted before talking about the elections. I’m sure that in our blue, and sad, state, folks are hoping that the lesser of all evils is rising to the top and any new “ins” won’t do much more damage to Californians. As for Gov. DeSantis’ win, I think it was a foregone conclusion. For 2024, it is Trump’s nomination to turn down. Any talk of DeSantis challenging Trump is only wishful thinking by Dems. That being said, DeSantis would be a great candidate should President Trump decide to not run.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.