Funding Mueller

I have no idea whether there will still be a Mueller investigation into collusion with Russians and random presidential misbehavior by the time you read this, but you needn’t despair. At least not if you want the investigation to continue.

The new, acting attorney general might cut off funds for the special prosecutor, but there’s a pretty obvious solution for that problem: a Kickstarter campaign.

There’s no reason that Robert Mueller and his team should have to rely on public funding to continue their efforts.

I do realize this is a controversial subject, but that’s all the more reason to get private funding — no more “wasting” taxpayer dollars if you think the president is a lovely human being.

The key for a Mueller Kickstarter is going to be donor incentives. You’ve got to offer goodies that investigation junkies can’t resist. I have a few suggestions.

At the $10 level, donors will receive a digital copy of Robert Mueller’s official appointment as special prosecutor.

At $20, a video compilation of Rudy Giuliani’s public defenses of the president, along with a laugh track recorded while members of the Mueller team viewed the recording.

At $50, a signed photo of Stormy Daniels.

At $100, a signed nude photo of Stormy Daniels.

At $1,000, a tour of Michael Cohen’s closet, skeletons included.

Sergey Kislyak

At $10,000, an exclusive dinner with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, at which you can try to recruit him while he tries to recruit you.

At $100,000, a member of the Mueller team will investigate a neighbor of your choice.

Zoo News. Does it sound unreasonable to want to carry a gun in an area filled with dangerous, carnivorous animals? Wouldn’t you want to feel protected?

I bring this up in light of a ruling last week by an appeals court in Missouri over whether a man had the right to carry a weapon into an area inhabited by beasts — who happened to be in cages in a zoo.

I know there are people who love their guns and never want to be parted from them, so I don’t understand why someone would risk being parted from his beloved weapon by going to some place that doesn’t allow guns. Is anyone required to go to the zoo?

This story is even weirder than it sounds. Not only did this guy want to visit the zoo in St. Louis while armed, but he traveled from Ohio to do it, and told the zoo operators in advance that he was coming with his gun. For some reason, this alarmed the zoo people.

Litigation, of course, ensued — and continues, because this got bounced back to a trial court.

I have no idea why this man, described as a “gun rights activist,” decided that bringing his precious Second Amendment fetish to a zoo was important, but it seems to me that neither he nor the zoo people thought this thing through.

If the defendant — I’m going to call him Mr. Macho — just wanted personal protection, all he had to do was come to the zoo with his concealed weapon and keep it concealed. But if he wanted attention and publicity for the gun-toting cause, it might have made more sense to pick a spot with a bit more crime and a bit fewer children. Trying to turn a zoo into the Old West might not have been the best propaganda for the NRA.

As for the zoo, why not just stop the guy at the entrance instead of going to court? He did tell them that he was coming. Surely, they could round up some guards in safari outfits with hunting rifles. Mr. Macho might even have enjoyed that.

I expect Mr. Macho will try to come to court with his weapon but — Surprise! — won’t be able to get into the courthouse with it. Someone might want to point out the similarity to the zoo.

Exit mobile version