Bucshon dodges actual findings in Mueller Report

Readers' Forum, June 20, 2019: Bucshon dodges actual findings in Mueller Report

• Letters to the Editor: Opinions from readers on issues of the day
 
• Jun 19, 2019
 

Bucshon dodges actual findings in Mueller Report

In response to my concerns about the findings spelled out in the Mueller Report, Congressman Larry Bucshon (R-8th, Indiana) replied with a letter assuring me that, “You may be certain that I will keep your thoughts in mind should any legislation regarding the Mueller report or the special counsel’s investigation come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.”

As we all now know by now, the Mueller Report provides incontrovertible evidence that the Russians intervened in the 2016 elections. House bill HR 1 was passed partially in response to those findings. HR1 would provide states with more money to harden voting systems against possible foreign intrusion and mandate that the Department of Homeland Security develop a strategy for resisting such attacks.

Rep. Bucshon voted against HR 1.

In his letter, Mr. Bucshon feels required to comment on the “millions of taxpayer dollars spent” on the Mueller investigation. He fails to admit to the fact that the assets seized from the convicted felon Paul Manafort, former Republican Campaign Chair and Trump adviser, will total $22 million, possibly more. Attorney General Barr can use this to almost cover the cost of the entire investigation which is estimated to be $24.2 million. The Mueller team has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. Most would say this is good value for the money spent.

Mr. Bucshon didn’t feel any of this worth mentioning to me, his taxpaying constituent.

My letter also posed direct questions in regard to the redactions in the released copy of the Mueller Report. Bucshon has had nearly two months to read this report. I wanted to know how my congressman can do the important work of protecting our elections from foreign influence and determining if the President of the United States has obstructed justice without having the full Mueller Report to read and evaluate.

The congressman’s letter was silent on these concerns.

Actually, not entirely silent. There is this. We all know how Trump endlessly chants and tweets, “No collusion. No obstruction.” The first full paragraph of Bucshon’s letter includes three references to “collusion” and “no collusion.” (I quote: “without a doubt, there was no collusion with Russians by President Trump ...”) It seems the President’s bumper-sticker denials are being heard by my representative in Congress. But I ask, couldn’t Larry Bucshon at least read, or start reading, redactions and all, the Mueller Report? Had he, this is what he would find:

“... [In evaluating the evidence] we [the Mueller investigation team] applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion.’ ... collusion is not a specific offense or liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.”

This clear as glass statement is not buried in a footnote. It appears on the second page of the Mueller Report. I guess our President isn’t the only non-reader in our government.

— Gary Daily, Terre Haute 

READ IT!

Readers' Forum, June 7, 2019: Facts, evidence the foundation of Mueller Report
Letters to the Editor: Opinions from readers on issues of the day 12 hrs ago
   
Facts, evidence the foundation of Mueller Report

Where Brian Howey sees “Hot messes courtesy of Trump, Comey and Mueller” (Terre Haute Tribune-Star, June 1, 2019), I see the Mueller Report not as part of some kind of “hot mess” but as a hearty broth of facts and evidence. Unlike what Howey correctly pegs as the “incurious and supplicant Indiana congressional delegation,” American citizen-voters should put personalities and diversions aside. We should all be willing to ingest and digest this medicinal and necessary broth.

But face it, if you want to know what’s in the Mueller Report, you’re going to have to read the book or read it online. We’re not going to get a TV docu-drama starring Bryan Cranston as Robert Mueller on HBO or a “Hamilton” style rap musical production explaining the truths and evidence of the Mueller Report.

The Report’s actual title is “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.” Does this sound important, intriguing, worth knowing something about? Does it sound like something you, sitting at home, in a library, or at your computer, should read all or parts of?

Of course it does. The FBI and the CIA — agencies staffed with dedicated, professional, Americans to the core — have verified that their findings are not a case of “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!” These agents have found that “The Russians Have Been Here and They’re Coming Again!” This Report provides the evidence supporting this finding. Read, weep, worry, and act.

I’m reading it. I recommend you do the same. It’s both fascinating and scary. Not Steven King scary. Scary in the ways the Founding Fathers were concerned and fearful of self-serving factions, nefarious foreign influences, and naked abuses of power by the powerful. James Madison is definitely not resting easy.

I tried Volume I, Section IV, the other night. This section is titled “Russian Government Links To and Contacts With The Trump Campaign.” At least 140 contacts between Russians and Americans are identified in it. Read it and you’ll find names that have been in the news for months. Trump appointees and operatives such as Flynn, Cohen, Manafort are peppered throughout this section. As most know, these guys are all in jail. Trump hired them. Trump praised them. Trump deserted them.

So it’s almost all there, chapter and verse, in clear language, footnotes bristling with supporting evidence and sources. I say “almost” because there are the redactions. President Trump’s appointment to Attorney General, William Barr, has chosen to block out some of the Report. Why is this? Shouldn’t your representatives in Congress (even if they’re from Indiana) be allowed to see what actions and names are behind those black curtains Barr chose to hang over portions of the Report? Isn’t seeing the evidence in full the job of Congress (even if they’re from Indiana)? Even the job of American citizens? Isn’t this all part of the checks and balances and election protections those who founded our Republic wrote into the Constitution?

And I know, I know, we live in cynical, politically divided, silo-world times. Nothing read or said will change some people’s emotion-fueled loyalties. As one historian put it in her study of medieval charlatans, “They [those under the thumb of a charlatan] want to believe, and would only hate the argumentative expert who tried to injure the object of their faith.” And so it goes. Some still think Nixon was a hero who got a raw deal and that Ponzi scheme artist Bernie Madoff was sincerely interested in growing and keeping people’s nest eggs safe.

There are many books on the lies and frauds of past charlatans, Nixon and Madoff. But first read the Mueller Report, the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.” It opens eyes and minds.

— Gary Daily, Terre Haute

Go Here