OPINION:
Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, called out Robert Mueller, the former special counsel for all-things-Russia-collusion — or, make that all-things-no-Russia-collusion — as an “anal opening,” just days before he’s due to appear before the House and answer questions about his investigation.
No, really, Gohmert. Tell us how you really feel.
“He’s done some irreparable damage to some things and he’s got to answer for them,” Gohmert said to Politico.
Meaning?
Meaning Mueller’s written 448-page report did not really match with how Democrats played it in their friendly press pages and on their fawning media platforms in the days and weeks that followed.
As The Associated Press wrote in March: “Special counsel Robert Mueller spent 22 months examining whether Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 election. His conclusion? No collusion.”
From there, the wild speculation about whether Mueller really, truly, actually found no evidence of collusion began. And from that, came all the wild speculation about obstruction of justice. And from that, the Democrats had their field day. Particularly when Mueller came out and offered up some confusing clarifications about what he said versus what he didn’t say in his written report.
Let the spin begin.
The New York Times painted it this way, in a late May headline: “Muller, in First Comments on Russia Inquiry, Declines to Clear Trump.”
But then there was this, a piece in The Hill, that same month: “Ex-federal prosecutor says Mueller press conference ’muddied the waters.’ “
And indeed it did.
It gave the anti-Trump faction much more fodder. It gave the Trump haters in the media fresh meat to chew — new sly innuendoes to sell.
So now Mueller is coming to Congress on July 17 to talk about his findings and answer questions from members of the House — members of the Republican-controlled House.
Gohmert, for one, isn’t pulling punches.
“[Mueller’s report] reinforced the anal opening that I believe Mueller to be,” Gohmert said, The Hill reported.
Well, it could’ve been worse.
Gohmert could’ve used the three-letter word beginning with the vowel “a” to say the same thing.
Instead, he chose sly innuendo. Quite like this whole Russia collusion investigation has been from start to finish.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.