Re: “,” Nov. 4 editorial.
I have to admit I was somewhat shocked by your editorial. To acknowledge what you did in this editorialshould be commended.
For over a year now, Donald Trump and his campaign have been looked at for collusion. Nothing has been found, except for one Russian meeting with Donald Trump Jr., when he was told there was bad stuff on Hillary Clinton tobe had. The meeting turned out to be a sham and no information was produced. But Clinton’s campaign actually helped fund research by a former British spy into Trump’s connections with Russia.Of course this was done via her law firm, so the Democratic Party would not be tied to it.Real collusion. Real money changing hands in an effort to alter the election.
As usual, the Democrats have a history of doing whatever it is they accuse the other side of doing.
SteveGehrke, Aurora
Your slanted editorial omits major facts:
1) The opposition research on Donald Trump was originally compiled by Paul Singer, a major GOP donor who did not want Trump to be the nominee; he stopped when Trump was nominated. The Clinton campaign continued it using a British spy who was an M16 Russian expert. Doing opposition research is a staple of candidates from all parties.
2) The purchase by Russia of Uranium One needed to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department was one of nine agencies that approved thepurchase. Russia does not have a licence to export uranium outside theU.S., soit had no impact on national security and the purchase was approved in part to get Russia on board with the Iran nucleardeal. Secretary Hillary Clinton most likely was not asked to weigh in, as the purchase was not considered controversial at the time.
GayleMerves, Lone Tree
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
