Here are my observations and opinions on my selected news of the day.

“LET ME JUST BE VERY CLEAR” – During her appearance on “the View,” Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris, responding to Meghan McCain’s remark that Harris was for decriminalization at the border, Harris said, “Let me just be very clear … I am not in favor of decriminalization … “(but) we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented and cross borders as criminals. That’s correct. That is correct,”

“Ooooookay,” responded a confused McCain.

“She didn’t have that trouble when it came to parents of truant students when she was California’s attorney general, writes Ed Morrissey in HotAir, “Harris explicitly threatened parents with the ‘full force and consequences of the law” after the state legislature made truancy a crime in the state’s penal code.”

I agree with Morrissey, who says, “Harris lacks intestinal fortitude to pick a position and stick with it.”

It will be interesting to see if one of her challengers hit her with this during the upcoming debate.

ILHAN OMAR, of the Mob Squad, announced that America bears the responsibility to provide abortions for illegal immigrants, according to a piece in The Federalist by Chrissy Clark. No surprise.

Mob Squad member Ayanna Pressley hasn’t taken an outright position on abortion for illegals, but supports legislation that would improve the ability for women to access abortions.

While Rashida Tlaib indicated that she was in favor of providing abortions for illegals, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s position is not known.

With a media that is so adamantly pro-abortion and pro-Democrat, it’s unlikely that they will embarrass the presidential candidates regarding support for abortions for illegals in the upcoming debates.

THANK GOODNESS, there are newspapers in Washington DC that provide balanced political coverage as alternatives to the left-leaning Washington Post.

When Post published “Fact-checking lawmakers” following the Mueller hearings, its report focused solely on statements made by Republicans – Ratcliffe, Collins, M. Johnson, Gohmert, Steube and McCormick.

The article (author) declined to fact check any Democrats during the hearing, despite a wealth of material,” noted The Daily Caller.

There was no comment from the Post when Mueller corrected himself after his misstatement in response to Democrat Ted Lieu.

When Mueller told Democrat Hakeem Jeffries that he didn’t “subscribe to the way that you analyzed that,” after Jeffries characterized his findings on obstruction of justice, that, too, was ignored by the Post.

“BEATING A DEAD HORSE is an exercise in futility. Hammering on Robert Mueller, author of the Mueller Report, has proved not more productive,” writes the editorial board of The Washington Times. “No matter how many times Democrats demand a do-over, the results won’t change.”

LOOKING OVER MY NOTES, I realized that I forgot to include the remarks of Texas Republican Louis Gohmert during the Mueller hearing. I don’t know why, because it was a rare fiery moment amid otherwise boring television, and also because he made the point I have stated here previously, that President Trump’s two years of tweets and verbal attack on Mueller were justified.

Over the two years, we heard the president’s references to Mueller’s investigation as a “witch hunt,” the need to bring it to a close, his threats to fire Mueller and his statement he was not going to fire Mueller.

All of this can be traced, I believe, to Trump being convinced that neither he nor anyone on his campaign staff had done anything wrong. He was an outsider who promised to change Washington and that was met with a Mueller team of attorneys with ties to the Clintons and the Democrat Party. An astute businessman, Trump saw the cards were stacked against him. It was “rigged,” he would say.

Now, for Gohmert’s comment. Raising his voice noticeably, he clearly had planned to accuse Mueller of perpetuating “injustice” against the president. Here’s the unedited transcript:

“If somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to effect the election and they see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person coming after them, and then a special counsel appointed, who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he’s innocent, he’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done. What he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice – and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice.”

After Gohmert’s remarks, Chairman Nadler offered Mueller an opportunity to respond. Mueller simply stated, “I take your question.”

PRAISE FOR MUELLER – While most of the media was forced to admit that Mueller’s appearance before the House committees was dismal, Politico Magazine published an interesting opposing view by Chicago attorney Renato Mariotti, “Actually, Robert Mueller Was Awesome.”

“I saw something completely different. From my perspective, after six hours of testimony, it was the 74-year-old career prosecutor and law enforcement officer who won the day. It wasn’t even close,” he began his article.

“Mueller didn’t want to testify, for good reason. He had done his work already. As a prosecutor, he had to ensure he stayed detached from the political process, presenting his findings in a manner that did not make it appear he was choosing a side or advancing an agenda,” Mariotti writes, “One slip of the tongue could be used to undermine his team’s work.”

Mariotti points out that “It was clear from the start he (Mueller) knew Democrats wanted to use him as a prop to bring the findings of his report to life as a part of a push for an impeachment inquiry.” He believes that Mueller went out of his way of regurgitating contents of the report and was wary of creating sound bites that could be used to suggest he supported impeachment.

“He swatted away Republican attempts to elicit answers about the origins of his probe as readily as he ignored Democrat attempts to get him to make their case against Trump.

“Through his careful answers, Mueller was able to thread a needle, staking out very nuanced and careful legal positions without seriously being tested by the members who questioned him. For example, Mueller refused to make any decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstructing justice,” he writes.

Interesting, but not convincing.

If you would like to read Mariotti’s piece in its entirety, CLICK HERE.

               May God continue to bless the United States of America.