LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Response to Ray Mosby’s May 2 column

To the Editor:

In the May 2 issue of The South Reporter, Mr. Ray Mosby used about 800 words to say that he does not like the President of the United States. More was hinted, but little was actually said beyond his dislike for Mr. Trump.

In column one, he tells us that the 400 pages of the Mueller Report “sets out pretty much the exact opposite” of what was contained in Attorney General Barr’s four-page summary. No example is given. In column two, he suggests that each of us read the full 400-page report for ourselves, and hints that after reading the full 400 pages, we will agree with him that the Attorney General has misrepresented the content of the Mueller Report.

Also in column two, Mr. Mosby states that we now have proof positive that Russia interfered in our election in an attempt to elect Donald Trump. He also informs us that the Russians are not our friends. This is probably not news to anyone except, perhaps, Barack Obama, who reminded Mitt Romney that the cold war was over, when Romney suggested Russia might not be an ally (“Tell Vlad I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”)

The only specific claim made by Mr. Mosby is found on the article’s page 5 continuation. There he states that “only a governing Justice Department opinion prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president constrained him from the getgo in presenting to a grand jury the considerable evidence he collected ....” I quote from the Mueller Report, Volume 1, Collusion Investigation, page 181: “The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law — including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause.”

As for Mr. Mosby’s claim that Mueller would have sought an indictment if there had not been a prohibition against indicting a sitting president, Mr. Mosby is, again, wide of the mark. The only allusion to indictment of a sitting president is found on page 179 of Volume 2 where Mr. Mueller mentions the Justice Department opinion that a sitting President may not be indicted. He does not, however, hint in any way that he would have sought an indictment had it not been for that opinion. He states that if a crime is committed by a sitting president, that president can be indicted after leaving office. Mr. Mueller, however, found no crime.

Very truly yours,
J.R. Dunworth
Holly Springs

Holly Springs South Reporter

P.O. Box 278
Holly Springs, MS 38635
PH: (662) 252-4261
FAX: (662) 252-3388
www.southreporter.com

Web Archive