Waiting for Mueller, With a Plea or Two

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/opinion/letters/mueller-testimony-trump.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “19 Questions We Have for Mueller Ahead of His Testimony Before Congress” (nytimes.com, July 22):

Dear Mr. Mueller:

Regarding your appearance before two House committees on Wednesday, I understand your reluctance to expand upon your detailed report as special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible efforts to impede that investigation. You are, however, in the unenviable position of possessing information and perspective as to the fitness for office of the occupant of the White House.

Some of your former colleagues in law enforcement have spoken out expressing their view that the president’s comportment in office is unacceptable and that his actions continue to undermine the rule of law. The president’s most recent action inciting racial division and denigrating the First Amendment rights of even elected officials is a case in point.

Unlike your former colleagues, you have the benefit of hours of testimony and investigation to inform your judgment. Doubtless all of your instincts as a dedicated public servant push you to stay in your lane and refrain from voicing any but the most narrowly defined facts. But as one of the many who see our country at risk and its citizens divided, I suggest that you have one last important duty that may end up being your most significant contribution to public life.

This is to speak plainly — not in redacted form or legalese — to the members of Congress who will be questioning you.

I thank you in advance for your courage to do so.

Matthew StonePetaluma, Calif.

To the Editor:

To your 19 questions for Robert Mueller, I would add a 20th (or a first): Why in the name of our ancient Republic did you accept appointment as special counsel in the first place if you did not believe that you could bring, or even clearly recommend, charges against the president?

As a special counsel, Mr. Mueller turned out to be the furthest thing from a witch hunter. Whether yea or nay, Mr. Mueller’s considered findings should have been said in plain English before the ultimate jury that counts, the American people.

Instead, we got ambiguity because — surprise! — it turned out that both Justice Department policy and Mr. Mueller’s personal notion of fairness prevented him from accusing a sitting president of wrongdoing. This took him two years to figure out and share with the rest of us. We’ve been had.

Ron SauderSalisbury, Md.

To the Editor:

Dear Mr. Mueller:

You must speak your conscience plainly to the people of this country. In sticking to the letter of your report and remaining within the confines dictated by President Trump and his associates, you do us all an injustice.

Mr. Mueller, speak as a full person, with feeling and conviction, values and principles. The country’s moment is your moment. Do not shrink from it.

Patricia Herzog Brookline, Mass.

To the Editor:

Here is a fundamental neutral question that Robert Mueller should be asked:

In remarks on April 18, Attorney General William P. Barr stated: “The deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Mr. Mueller should be asked if he agrees or disagrees with that conclusion. He may dodge that question, but if he doesn’t, then he should be asked to explain his answer.

Richard T. FranchBiltmore Lake, N.C.

To the Editor:

I hope that the members of the committees questioning Robert Mueller will preface their session with something like this:

Mr. Mueller: I am sure that you will agree that what one says or writes — or what one means to say or means to express in writing — is not always what is heard or understood. There could not be a clearer example of this than the enormous variation in the interpretations of your report — by the president, the attorney general, the media and indeed various members of Congress.

So it is often and perhaps only through dialogue that deep and true meaning is established. We hope that you then understand why we feel that it is so important for us to ask, and you to answer, questions that help us all come to a common and shared understanding of your written words.

The report cannot and should not “stand on its own” or “speak for itself” when we have the opportunity to resolve fundamental differences in comprehension through dialogue with its author.

Richard HendrickOrford, N.H.