ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Investigation agendas | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Investigation agendas

Democratic Congressman Elijah Cumming was gracious enough to warn us that once his House Oversight Committee was seated, there would be many investigations. I couldn’t agree more with the gentleman from Maryland. However, I’m sure my agenda and the agenda of investigators would be quite different.

A panel composed of Democratic socialist congressmen and congresswomen would be like sending rats toward the cheese. There should be a grand jury empaneled with no political connections.

I’m sure the committee’s agenda will be a continuation of Robert Mueller’s investigation. This has gone on for two years at a cost of millions of dollars, and all he has caught is a couple of crooked lawyers.

I would like to see how the Clintons left the White House “dead broke,” according to Hillary Clinton, and in a relatively short time had a foundation worth several hundred million dollars. What did Bill Clinton have to say that was worth $600,000?

A multi-million-dollar windfall came to the foundation about the time a large part of the United States’ uranium ended up in the hands of the Russians.

I could go on and on and only scratch the surface of the Clintons’ shenanigans.

I have heard that Congressman Hank Johnson, D-Ga., is going to be on Cummings’ inquiry panel. This was the gentleman who said that he feared the island of Guam “will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” This is your Congress at work.

Don Brooks

Hempfield

Editor’s note: The Mueller investigation has led to the indictments or guilty pleas from 34 individuals including three Trump advisers, and three companies.


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.