ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Biased coverage of Mueller report | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Biased coverage of Mueller report

The lead Associated Press story “Mueller report: ‘This is the end of my presidency,’ Trump said after special counsel appointment” (April 18, TribLIVE) is highly misleading, biased and speculative.

How does Robert Mueller’s probe, having failed to show collusion, become an obstruction of justice probe? Nowhere in the article is a statement regarding the original purpose of the investigation, that there was Russian collusion. How can you be guilty of obstruction of justice when no crime was committed?

You assume President Trump’s motives were the worst possible. Curtailing a highly speculative investigation into a nonexistent crime cannot be “obstruction of justice.”

Considering replacement of Mueller and a highly belligerent team with more objective personnel is a reasonable action.

Firing an incompetent James Comey was justified. By his own admission, he leaked classified information. Nothing in the list of possible instances rises to a charge that would stand up at trial.

Nowhere does the article comment on the cooperation of the president with the investigation. Most of the examples of this “possible obstruction” had to have come from White House materials. Only items which negatively portray Trump are included.

In short, this story appears to have been written by the Committee to Impeach the President, not by a legitimate reporter or news agency.

Bruce Argall

Hempfield


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.