In her latest anti-Trump letter to the editor (July 27), Lois Eisenberg seems quite satisfied, almost gleeful, that Robert Mueller’s recent congressional testimony was “precise and to the point.” She must have been watching a different hearing from the one I witnessed. Instead of being precise, I saw an elderly man who seemed confused and disconnected. At times it appeared that he wasn’t even there. From a human condition standpoint, it was painful to watch. And contrary to her assertion that Mueller was “providing all of the pertinent information as needed,” Mueller refused to answer at least 100 questions during his testimony. But who’s counting?
Mueller was not only not familiar with his report, a report that even anti-Trump media channels such as MSNBC and CNN said was obvious not to have been of Mueller’s authorship, but rather was written by his legal team of 19 Clinton supporters, many of whom were also her campaign donors. The report was in Mueller’s name only, as if Mueller’s name would give it legitimacy.
Where’s the impartiality? There wasn’t any.
What was even more disconcerting was Mueller’s own admission that he was not intimately familiar with the infamous Steele Dossier, a dossier that was the linchpin for a two-year, $40-million hoax that was paid for by American taxpayers.
Now that we finally have a competent U.S. attorney general in William Barr, let the real collusion investigation begin, a collusion that was given birth and was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, in concert with the Democratic National Committee, to fix a presidential election.
Contrary to Ms. Eisenberg’s false assertions, that was the REAL crime that was committed.
Max Morgan
Valencia
