Editor’s note: What we know so far of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election drew strong responses from The Daily Signal’s audience. Here’s a sampling. Don’t forget to write us at [email protected]—Ken McIntyre

Dear Daily Signal: Collusion with Russia was the “insurance policy,” a contrived b.s. story by Democrats to shift focus away from the faked criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a personal computer server to send and receive classified and top secret State Department information (“Attorney General Sees No Case for Obstruction as Mueller Finds No Collusion With Russia”).

Ironically, special counsel Robert Mueller’s witch-hunt did find evidence of “collusion with the Russians to influence the election of 2016″—by the hacked Democratic National Committee at the time Hillary took charge of it.

Additional evidence pointed to obstruction of justice and perjury by Hillary Clinton and by officials of the Justice Department  and FBI.

And it suggested the committing of fraud by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI agents who signed applications for FISA warrants to spy on Trump associates without informing the judges that the information in the “Steele dossier” was never verified by the FBI.

And that they did that without informing the judges that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the DNC.—Drew Page


The argument is there was presidential obstruction of justice over FBI Director James Comey’s firing. Well, let’s look at that:

If Comey was fired by President Trump because of the Russian investigation, then he was fired for starting an investigation into a political enemy based on a known false document in order to overthrow the U.S. government.

In most countries, that would get you executed, rather than fired.

Democrats know the full Mueller report cannot be released, since it contains grand jury testimony, classified information, and methods and sources. If it were released, they would prosecute the attorney general for releasing it.—Lew Williams

The collusion-asserting buffoons and bloviators in the media and among politicians should list all essential elements of the crime of collusion that must be proved with facts and evidence substantiating this ethereal offense.

But wait, you say? They’re still looking, notwithstanding the fact that Robert Mueller’s team did not find such evidence.

Consider this. Logic would dictate that if there is no federal crime of collusion, then searching for evidence of it would be oxymoronic.

But when have logic, critical analysis, and reason ever been material factors in a politician’s or media pundit’s mindset when political assassination, at considerable expense to the public, is the order of the day?

If there is no federal crime of “collusion,” then how can efforts, if they existed, to hinder the gathering of facts to prove a nonexistent crime be considered a crime (aka obstruction of justice)?

It seems to me that, if it existed, any obstruction was to assert constitutional rights to block creation of an irrelevant process crime that would be used to further the political assassination of the president.—Jim Fuscaldo, Michigan

Dear Daily Signal: Funny they should whine that President Trump is not above the law, when Hillary and Obama are judged to be, according to the same Democrats.

If they are so het up about transparency, let’s investigate the whole last administration.—Marlene Marty Fowler-Helfrick, Spring Hill, Fla.


Lesson learned: Watch your back. Don’t trust your friends to keep conversations private. Don’t trust the people you “get along with” to not turn on you and twist your words. Stay clean. Don’t give anyone a foothold.

Sad, but it’s a politician-eat-politician world out there and there seems to be no such thing as real friends, real team players.—Suzu M.


Why can’t the Democrats just quit it and start doing the job they were elected to do, while they still have a job, and spend some time securing our country?

They are dividing our country and making fools of themselves.—Patricia C. Porter


There was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction of justice in the same way there was insufficient evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for her use of the private email server.

In any event, there are ongoing investigations by, I think, four House committees, along with all the investigations Mueller passed to the Southern District of New York for possible criminal activity by Trump and virtually all of his organizations.

We’ll see. This is the beginning, not the end.—Edward Buatois


It probably will still be necessary for Trump to nuke Moscow in order to prove once and for all that there was no collusion.—Boyd Richardson

Dear Daily Signal: I was not a Trump fan going into the election, but it has been an eye-opening experience watching the left have meltdown after meltdown, as Jarrett Stepman writes in his commentary (“Mueller Report Is a Damning Indictment of the Media”).

Here is a man who has never held office before, has plenty of his own money, and places himself dead center in the bulls-eye. President Trump actually wants to put America first. Very simple.

Not being a career politician, he has refused to bow to the media. He has run his mouth when he felt like it and called them out.

After all this, he has still done more for this country than Obama did in eight years. In fact, it seems a good portion of his time in office has been spent trying to repair Obama damage.

Go for it, Mr. President. I believe you are on the right track.—Raymond Hudson


Now you’re being super-silly, Jarrett Stepman. You’re making a lot of judgments about the Mueller report, but you haven’t read it.

In fact, no one outside the Justice Department has read it. Aren’t you doing exactly what you accuse “the media” of doing? Yes, you are being a hypocrite.

Bear in mind, right-wing media for the past two years, along with our dishonest president, have been proclaiming the special counsel investigation is “a hoax” and a “witch-hunt,” “staffed by Democrats,” which is “determined to unseat a sitting president” and reverse an Electoral College election result.

Among these, of course, were The Daily Signal and Fox News Channel, the latter being the most widely watched television news network in the country.

The relentless right-wing media attack against “the media” also is profoundly disingenuous and self-serving.—John Levin, New York


The mainstream media has lost all of its credibility because they have orchestrated fake news to support their political bias. They might as well rename themselves the Association of Progressives Network.

The mainstream media in America has become untruthful and very biased. I’m surprised advertisers even want to put their ads on networks that shovel out propaganda and fake news.—Wes Potts


This is a huge indictment of the Democrat Party as well. Shameful.—Ginny Murrell


In the photo with this commentary, they couldn’t even spell “Mueller” right on the moving marquee.—Greg Brown

Dear Daily Signal: What the Democrats have done over the last two-plus years is the most egregious abuse of power in U.S. history (“Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Probe to Attorney General”).

They have accused the sitting president of a long laundry list of crimes, with zero evidence. They have broken more laws than Al Capone. They used a weaponized federal government, thanks to Obama’s illegally turning it into a hit squad for the Democrat Party.

The media problem has the potential to destroy this country. To be legitimate media, the press needs to report the news, good or bad. Once they become the wing of one party, which the mainstream media has with the Democrat Party, they should lose their licenses.

The Harvard study showed that many in the mainstream media were doing virtually all negative stories on Trump. It found Fox News was actually doing 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive stories, so they are real media when it comes to reporting on Trump.—Anthony Alafero

No photo description available.

Honoring the American’s Creed

Dear Daily Signal: Much of America today is an enormously divided nation, both politically and culturally. Hopefully, this situation soon will change in a manner that embodies and puts into practice the very special words of the American’s Creed.

For this to happen, though, many politicians at all levels of government first need to learn what the American’s Creed says and then use its words as a primary guideline for actions and decisions.   

In April 1918, Congress accepted the words composed by William Tyler Page the year before during World War I as the official American’s Creed. Page said of the creed: “It is the summary of the fundamental principles of the American political faith as set forth in its greatest documents, its worthiest traditions, and its greatest leaders.”

In composing the American’s Creed, Page used passages and phrases from the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Daniel Webster’s reply to Robert Y. Hayne in the Senate in 1830. The creed reads as follows:

I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.

I write as a Vietnam veteran, member of the American Legion, and graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Alabama, and Army War College.

I believe that if today’s politicians at all levels, especially members of Congress, strongly embraced the American’s Creedand let itguide them, it certainly would be in the best interests of America.

Such a lifestyle should help overcome, hopefully in a major way, the terribly bitter and divisive political environment that exists in America.–Paul Gardiner, Hoschton, Ga.

Sarah Sleem and Courtney Joyner helped to compile this week’s edition of “We Hear You.”