President’s claims refuted

Even if Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress was dry and halting, he capably refuted President Trump’s false claims that the former special counsel’s report exonerated him and that Mueller’s investigation was a witch hunt. While the House Judiciary Committee might not begin impeachment proceedings against our PrevaricatorinChief, Americans now can decide whom to trust: a former FBI director and military veteran, or a former reality TV show host who evaded military service.

Gregory Smithson, San Carlos

Trump’s interference

Regarding “Mueller’s dry, damning account” (Editorial, July 25): The most damning statement made by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony before Congress was that President Trump was not exculpated of obstruction of justice charges. For months, the American people have had to listen to the president repeat that he was totally exonerated by the Mueller Report, despite the fact that it contains numerous examples of his interference with Mueller’s investigation.

While Democrats asked Mueller questions to elicit truthful information, the Republicans questioned why a sitting president, who can’t be indicted while in office, should be investigated at all. Apparently, the GOP — unlike millions of Americans — thinks their leader is above the law, and should never face any consequences for his illegal activities.

Vivian Wexford, San Francisco

Clear evidence of disloyalty

Robert Mueller’s report and testimony document that President Trump welcomed an attack by a foreign adversary on our election because he thought it would help his campaign, while at the same time he was trying to close a business deal with the same adversary. Then he lied about this repeatedly, and attempted on multiple occasions to illegally interfere with the investigation of this attack on our country. The only reason he was not indicted for this illegal activity is a federal policy that prevents indicting a sitting president.

Meanwhile, the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are refusing to allow the Senate to debate an election security bill passed by the House, leaving us wide open to another attack in 2020. This is clear evidence of disloyalty, and of putting personal interests above those of our country. I simply cannot understand how American patriots can look at these facts and think these people are fit to lead our nation. Andrew Gunther, Oakland

Time for impeachment

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must understand that this is the time. The time is now. There is no more waiting. We must act and unfortunately, the only way “we” can act in our representative democracy is through her, our duly expected representative. I am begging her to begin impeachment proceedings. I am also promising that I will work tirelessly to ensure her defeat as my representative if she doesn’t. I’ve never felt anything but admiration and even a little adoration for the congresswoman. But I’ve reached my limit. The testimony from Mueller this week, while saying nothing new, nonetheless illustrated how deeply flawed the “wait and see” strategy on impeachment is. The more these facts are aired, the more they are said out loud and in public, the more the record is set straight and not twisted by the lying Republicans, the better. Pelosi must listen to her constituents and take action. There are no more excuses. There is nothing more to learn. Get this lunatic out of the Oval Office and do it by exposing him to the weekslong if not monthslong process of impeachment. We cannot survive timidity. It may already, in fact, be too late.

David Ralston, San Francisco

The haves and havenots

Pardon me for not being excited to read “L.A.’s Konbi to hold popup in S.F.” (Business, July 25). I realize that San Francisco is a foodie’s paradise, but people who are clamoring to buy $25 tickets to sample three perfectly symmetrical half egg salad sandwiches and a slice of strawberry cake should take a careful look around them. The city streets are filthy and too many homeless people are living on them.

This article only accentuates the fact that San Francisco, once a socioeconomically diverse city, is now mostly populated by two kinds of people: the haves and the havenots.

Finn MacLaughlin, Daly City

Climate change is not a hoax

Concerning “Europe heat wave” (News of the Day, July 25): My sympathies go to the citizens of the European Union, who are experiencing temperatures over 100 degrees and droughtlike conditions. As residents in California (and now in Portugal) sadly know, such conditions can enable dangerous wildfires to occur. This news story, like so many others throughout this decade, shows (despite President Trump’s beliefs) that climate change is certainly not a hoax.

Henrik Lundquist, Larkspur

City’s biblical parallel

Regarding “Plan calls on all to house the homeless” ( July 24): I applaud Heather Knight for chastising those who profess concern for the homeless but who systematically reject proposals to build shelters, asserting that their neighborhood “isn’t the right place” and that a better place could be found in another part of town. If just one of those groups would accept supportive housing in their neighborhood, others might be encouraged to follow suit.

I am reminded of the wellknown story of the multiplication of loaves and fishes in the New Testament (Matthew 14: 1321). Jesus and his disciples had only five loaves and two fish to feed a crowd of 5,000, yet they distributed them freely — and at the end there were enough leftovers to fill 12 baskets. Some theologians suggest that the real “miracle” consisted of a change of heart among the crowd. Seeing the munificence of Jesus, the thousands brought out provisions which they had been hoarding, and instead shared them with others. I see a parallel between that crowd in Galilee two thousand years ago and those who enjoy “warm beds, stocked refrigerators and functioning bathrooms” but cannot see their way to providing shelter for today’s homeless.

Maureen Wesolowski, Berkeley