On obtuse comments

I see in the Democrat-Gazette that our junior senator is claiming clairvoyance in his comments on the Mueller report: “As I’ve been saying for two years, there’s no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.” But saying things is not the same as seeing facts. The investigation didn’t address “collusion,” which is Trump’s term (and the attorney general’s); it applied the much more rigorous framework of conspiracy law. Also, though the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government, the Mueller report says that “a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

The senator’s comments on obstruction of justice are equally obtuse: “… some angry tweets about an investigation into something that didn’t happen is hardly obstruction of justice.” But the investigation was on the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Is the senator claiming—against the conclusions of all U.S. intelligence agencies and the special counsel—that this interference didn’t happen?

The senator would do well to follow his own advice to Democrats: Put aside his obsession and join in doing the people’s work. The people would benefit from an assurance that the Russian—or any—government never again interferes in our elections. The people would benefit from reliable and affordable health care (the senator recently told an EPA administrator that his “greatest concern was the public health of Arkansans”). The people would benefit from improved infrastructure, including rural broadband and net neutrality. How about it, Senator? MARK STENGEL Fayetteville