‘Not, Not, Who’s There?’ The ‘Report’ (Maybe, or Maybe Not)

‘Not, Not, Who’s (Not?) There ? The ‘Report’, maybe. Mr. Mueller exits leaving the public and Congress with the responsibility, rare in these days of infomercials and manufactured ‘news’, to read for ourselves his novel-length Report and to make our own conclusions. We don’t seem up to this task despite intricate, but precise, details. But Mr Mueller left crumbs for the mice to both nibble on and lead us. However, the Report’s deliberate and maybe over-cautious style, though probably required when authoring such a report under a dictatorship. And, like the political satirists of previous times (Voltaire, de Foe, not Mencken....) Mueller seems to have employed his own disguising style, the use of the double negative ‘Not, Not’ to present his conclusions. That subtlety appears to be beyond the interpretive skills for the American public and its Congress. Yet the answer is already there ... in the style of the Report’s conclusions: by logic rules, the double negative ‘Not, Not’ equates to an affirmative...which leads to this reader’s conclusion that ‘obstruction” did occur, is now occurring and Will continue unless stopped...by Congress. As for Collusion, conspiracy and treason, how can one Not come to the same affirmative conclusions in the face of so much associative detail (damming but “insufficient” evidence, again a seeming disguise of the affirmative, ...with so much foreign agent traffic in and out of the White House and so many private meetings with same agents hidden from the public and even from WH staff? A well-known 70s song aptly describes our dilemma - “...what’s puzzling you is the nature of the game.” As for the ‘Game’, we know what’s come into the White House.