Mueller report an even hotter topic with his comments
Special counsel Robert Mueller has been a stalwart representative of law enforcement, including a 12-year term as head of the FBI.
His conduct during the Russia investigation was exemplary. Ignoring the hysterical reactions from President Donald Trump and cronies, Mueller conducted the probe with professionalism and dedication. Having waded through the redacted report, with legal references close at hand, it is clearly not a vindication by any means. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign criminally assisted Russia in election interference. There are more than ample grounds to charge Trump with obstruction.
However, as Mueller points out, the legal guidelines do not allow him to indict a sitting president. Mueller noted that a Justice Department legal opinion “says the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
The American people patiently awaited the outcome of this investigation. Now that it is concluded, it is time for Congress to act. The overwhelming evidence presented in the report makes clear at least 10 instances where the president gave explicit, illegal orders to act against the investigation. The articles of impeachment must be filed. This nation purports to have a justice system where no one is above the law. It’s time to prove it.
Thomas M. Holzfaster, Lakewood
For over 40 years the Deep State Swamp has placed itself above our president and elected representatives. Ever since the FBI’s famous “deep throat,” Mark Felt, spoon-fed Woodward and Bernstein of Watergate notoriety, the federal bureaucracy has rebelled against our government “of the people and by the people.” Our current FBI certainly appears to be no different.
If Mr. Mueller felt there was collusion but couldn’t prosecute it due to federal law, all he had to do was say so in his report. Instead, he and his sycophants again conspired to let the media mislead our country.
I, for one, am sick of all of it.
Chuck Lawson, Greenwood Village
Robert Mueller finally spoke to the American people on Wednesday. His most stunning statement was, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
Do we need to know any more?
Many of us believed that many crimes were committed, by the president and others around him. Time to contact your senators and congressional representatives and let them know what you think.
Ann Freeman, Denver
If you listened to Mueller, it is obvious that it is Congress’ job to respond to the evidence of Trump’s obstruction of justice that was laid out in Mueller’s report. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will not bring impeachment charges until there is overwhelming bipartisan support. Every Republican in Congress needs to join Rep. Amash in reading Mueller’s report and taking the difficult but brave step of calling for Trump’s impeachment — and better yet choosing someone to run against him in the GOP primaries for president in 2020.
Judy McGoogan, Lafayette
CSU did not do enough to help struggling son
Re: “Mental health and well-being is a critical issue,” May 22 commentary by Tony Frank, Colorado State University president
By George Karayannis
My Turn
Thank you for the thoughtful editorial in The Denver Post on May 21 concerning the critical need to address the student health crisis at CSU.
My son, John Karayannis, was scheduled to graduate this past weekend but on Feb. 14 became one of the 60 students who took their own lives on your watch.
He sought help for video addiction from Student Affairs in the fall of 2017, putting your staff on notice in incredibly stark terms regarding the state of his mental health according to his school records:
“I feel like a zombie in a digital nightmare. This is not the life I want to live.”
He was referred to counseling and perhaps went once. During the fall of 2018, however, he simply stopped going to classes early in the semester and received a 0.7 GPA. This precipitous drop was not flagged by your staff or your systems — which is incomprehensible to me. His CSU academic counselor physically met with him in November 2018, yet never brought this up and likely had no idea John was falling into the abyss despite ample red flags. John also didn’t attend any classes in spring 2019, which was only belatedly flagged by CSU.
His case manager reached out over several months in a series of passive emails and texts, which were never returned. CSU’s last outreach — another passive text message — was hours after John had already taken his own life.
I urge CSU to immediately change its pathetically passive, and ultimately deadly, approach to at-risk student outreach. I understand the overwhelming challenge CSU faces with limited resources. However, identified at-risk students deserve a higher level of attention, and CSU owes them a higher duty of care. At-risk students need to be talked to and touched, not just texted. Students should also be encouraged to sign a waiver when they enroll that allows CSU to contact parents under certain conditions, such as a severe drop in GPA.
CSU did not kill my son. But CSU absolutely let John slip through the cracks despite very clear warning signs. John loved CSU, and he was incredibly proud of being in the Warner College. I dearly hope that CSU can implement active outreach measures that minimize the chance of this happening to other at-risk students and devastating their families. At least it would let his death come to some good.
Climate change debate continues to heat up
Re: “Lofty goals,” May 26 commentary
Because this is supposedly a scientific piece, let’s start with the facts: Nothing Colorado does will have any impact on climate change.
None. Zero. Nada.
Colorado could end all carbon emissions tomorrow and it would have no impact; in fact, to a somewhat lesser degree, this is basically true for the entire United States.
This isn’t science but rather religion where one forces people to make tremendous financial and societal sacrifices today for no actual benefit.
The computer models they worship clearly shows them the climate change futility of any state’s actions. But because it is now a religion, the facts be damned and full speed ahead. The Earth will get these benefits in the after-life. Yeah, sure.
John Conlin, Littleton
The featured commentary in the Perspective section, “Lofty Goals,” details the challenges of attempting to decarbonize Colorado’s economy. Then, curiously, the Life & Culture section led with the article “Off-Road, On-Point,” which seems to promote ways to engage in fossil fuel-driven recreation in Colorado’s backcountry.
If we are to adapt the behaviors and policies needed to reduce our carbon footprint, we can’t have it both ways. While certain sectors benefit from tourist dollars spent on off-roading, the short- and long-term costs of such activities to all of society don’t justify these economic benefits to a few. More vehicles in natural areas of Colorado translate to multiple negative outcomes:
1. More encroachment upon fragile and dwindling wildlife habitat and ecosystems.
2. Noise pollution that extends well beyond off-roading sites into wilderness.
3. Increased CO2 pollution and reduced overall air quality.
4. More danger to those who choose to explore natural areas in a non- motorized fashion.
5. An economy that is definitely not decarbonized.
It is time that we stop placing monetary profit as the highest value in determining policy and guiding behavior. The primary crisis of our time is climate change and the extinction of diversity on Earth. Our children and their children will experience the consequences of our actions, I believe, in a dramatic way. We owe it to them and to our planet to be the adults in the room and make responsible choices about how we treat the Earth — particularly in how we use our public lands.
Joe Fretz, Lakewood
Vincent Carroll gets a lot right when he targets “Lofty Goals” of changing over everything to new technology for our energy sources. It has not been easy to move Colorado just this far away from burning stuff for our energy. And getting to 100 percent renewable energy will cost. But as any significant transition, say, indoor plumbing, or road networks, or international travel, those initial costs are seen in retrospect as investments.
Moving toward the new energy economy — simply because the physics of electricity are cleaner, healthier and more efficient — promises a better life for everyone.
Yet, Carroll also skirts the issue of the “apocalypse.” The scientific findings are out there for anyone to read, and a man of Carroll’s intellect should be familiar with them, but he doesn’t seem to be.
We burn fossil fuels today and the stuff lingers in the atmosphere for generations, heating up the air and the oceans. Damage is already done; people are already dying, storms are worse, rains heavier, droughts droughtier and forests in flames, just as predicted decades ago.
The solutions are not one big thing. Business and government must and, in many good examples, are working together. But this climate crisis is also a moral issue for all Americans.
The Republicans tell us that business will take care of us.
The Democrats say the government and business.
But it is a free people who will choose what cost they will bear for their children.
Jeff Neuman-Lee, Denver
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
