Mueller wants to testify in private.

[SamKnause]

Fuck him.

Just discussed by Jerry Nadler on Rachel Maddow.

[UniteFightBack]

1. My first reaction is the same. An Emotional FUCK YOU. They are WEAPONIZING the DOJ, The FBI,

the summary of the report...EVERYTHING and this muthfucka wants to be private? He should not of taken the damn job then. DOES HE SEE WTF IS HAPPENING TO AND IN AMERICA?!!???!??!?!

[SamKnause]

5. They are all a bunch of unpatriotic motherfuckers.

They don't give a damn !!!!!!!!!

[TheBlackAdder]

42. Yep, he speaks in public and if a sensitive topic, side bar it, with future public recall if needed.

[Grasswire2]

93. EXACTLY. WEAPONIZING THE DOJ.

And he doesn't want to be in the public politicized fight.

His recalcitrance is a political act, too.

[uponit7771]

112. +1, if Mueller didn't already know what was coming then we're all in deep shit

[Funtatlaguy]

2. Waste of time. Public needs to hear directly from him.

Otherwise, it will just be what leaks out from the House members.

Yes, Mueller is an unpatriotic coward just as I suspected.

[gldstwmn]

20. America deserves to hear from him directly.

[StarfishSaver]

28. If it's about trying to get information, why wouldn't a transcript be sufficient?

[Funtatlaguy]

31. TV convinces people much more than a transcript.

[StarfishSaver]

33. TV also lends itself to abuse and showboating

The Supreme Court and other federal courts aren't televised and they do just fine.

I think people want a show more than they really want information. Otherwise, they wouldn't care so much about what format that information is delivered in.

[StarfishSaver]

108. I think most Americans are intelligent enough to be able to understand and digest information

without necessarily "hearing it from someone's lips." And those that aren't likely won't pay attention to anything he testifies about, whether they see it live, on tape or in writing.

[StarfishSaver]

135. They didn't see Comey on TV talking about the emails. They saw people talking about Comey's letter

Comey didn't appear on television at all to discuss reopening the investigation into Hillary's emails before the election. He sent a letter to Congress informing them he was doing so and THAT'S what got all the coverage. And it helped to tank Hillary's campaign even though the public didn't see or hear Comey say a word about it. Everything they learned and the huge impact it had all came from what Comey had communicated in a written document. Comey's letter was so compelling and impactful that two and a half years later, you don't even remember that you didn't hear about it from Comey in person.

Thank you for making my point.

[StarfishSaver]

137. What "moving images" did you see? Certainly not of Comey talking about reopening the investigation

And I have no idea where voters got their info about the contents of Comey's letter, whether from the Times, Post or elsewhere. But I do know for certain they didn't get it from watching or listening to Comey since he communicated that information solely in writing - proof that people don't need to watch or hear someone speak on television in order for their words to have an impact.

And I defy you to demonstrate that "most left-leaning experts" disagree with Nadler. Can you cite to the latest poll of left-leaning experts?

I doubt the fact that you and some other "left-leaning experts" may disagree with Nadler has him all that upset and certainly not enough to cause him to get woozy from dehydration. In fact, he probably hasn't given you a second thought.

Finally, why would you say I'm "all over the web" discussing this? Are you tracking my online usage? If so, you would know that you're wrong. And if you are, you've got a bigger problem than can be addressed on this board.

[StarfishSaver]

139. Lol

Ok.

[EffieBlack]

142. Lol!

"I'm absolutely positive that I saw the Director of the FBI on television making one of the most significant and dramatic announcements in American political history, but I can't find a clip of it anywhere (and neither can anyone else), so you just have to take my word for it."

Wouldn't be easier to just admit that you were mistaken?

[True Blue American]

177. Comey held a Press Conference after Hillary was cleared

Where he spoke about her being careless. Something that had never been done before. That really hurt Hillary, but she still won by 2.8 million votes. Trump won the EC ote by 77,000

[StarfishSaver]

183. Comey didn't have a press conference to talk about reopening the investigation in October

He did that in a letter, and made no further public statement about it until long after the election. And even though it was a written document and no one saw him make any announcement, it had tremendous impact.

You're thinking about the press conference he had earlier in the summer.

[True Blue American]

185. Did I say that?

Comey held the Press Conference AFTER he cleared Hillary! Never ever been done before!
He accused her of being reckless.i said othng about before he reopened the case. He sent a letter! then! Another thing that had never been done before in the mdst of an election! Comey is no hero!

[StarfishSaver]

186. Comey's press conference in the summer is irrelevant to discussion.

We were discussing Comey's letter and why it had an impact on the election even though he never discussed it publicly. My point was that one need not see someone actually speak in order for something in writing to have an impact. You entered the discussion after that to talk about the summer press conference which is beside the point.

[True Blue American]

187. Someone asked about a Press Conference.

I explained when he had one

. With everything that takes place every day it is hard to keep things straight.

Since I am right in an area that had 4 tornados your complaint seems kind of foolish.

[emmaverybo]

162. I'm clapping. You can't see me, but StarFish, I am 👏 clapping. nt

[Thekaspervote]

153. Exactly!! Ask yourself this.. who's opinions about dotard and his criminal doings will be changed

By seeing mueller testify? Certainly not his base, and most everyone else already knows he’s a crook and a con. So if the leaders in congress are privy to his testimony and we’re not...what?? Why give fux news a chance to twist and distort, cause we all know that’s what they will do.

[gldstwmn]

35. Who's transcript? The Republicans? The Democrats?

Barr's? What a bunch of horseshit.

[StarfishSaver]

37. The transcript is prepared by a neutral clerk, reviewed by both sides and certified to be an exact

transcription (and is compared with the audio recording)

Every Congressional hearing has a transcript, whether it's open or closed - just like every court proceeding, including those that are not televised. It's not complicated. It's done all the time with no problems. This would not be anything new or unusual.

[gldstwmn]

43. And next they'll say he can't testify because someone's feelings might get hurt.

I don't want a transcript. The public at large will not read or pay much mind to the transcript with the exceptions of the soundbites. They need to see it right in front of them on the tv to believe it.

[StarfishSaver]

46. If the public isn't interested enough to read a transcript, then it's not that important to them

And most people will only see clips and soundbytes if it IS televised.

If you want the facts, you can get them from the transcript.

[choie]

61. How much impact did the Watergate hearings

have? Americans were glued to their bark-a-loungers every day. Do you think they would have read the testimony with as much interest? We're fighting for our damn democracy - relying on the American public to read a transcript is useless.

[StarfishSaver]

62. You're talking about the Watergate hearings, not the impeachment hearings

The impeachment hearings were closed to the public and not televised, but they did fine.

And witnesses also testified in private in the Watergate hearings. Most people remember John Dean and Alexander Butterfield, but many other witnesses testified off-camera.

[LanternWaste]

104. You're talking about media impact, not specific differences between instances.

You keep moving the goalposts.

I get it. It's necessary sometimes.

[uponit7771]

113. Mueller's own words and voice have much more impact than transcripts that can be more easily

... distorted by the KGOP.

[StarfishSaver]

115. His own words would be captured verbatim in the transcript

I'm not sure what difference his voice makes to the fact he presents.

[uponit7771]

118. His voice wont be captured, easier to distort transcripts and his words will be less socialized

... than TV.

The KGOP can make it a political spectacle without TV, there's no rational reason to think they wont.

There aren't too many cogent reasons for Mueller's move other than he doesn't have to talk to congress without a subpoena

[StarfishSaver]

121. Because nothing anyone ever says on camera is ever misharacterized or distorted

I give the American people more credit than many here do. I don't think they're stupid and I don't think they're so shallow and low information that there either so uninterested or so shallow that they can only understand information communicated to them live on television.

And those people who are that shallow or disinterested aren't really likely to absorb new information just because they saw Robert Mueller say it on live television.

[uponit7771]

124. TV will socialize Mueller's words and voice way better than transcripts, we can agree on that ...

I give America credit I don't give the KGOP the benefit of the doubt that they wont distort Mueller's words which can be done way easier with transcripts than video.

5% of America watched Cohen's testimony a 5th of that read Mueller's report, we understand what TV brings.

[StarfishSaver]

131. I also give them more credit than many people do

And I give them enough credit to be able to understand testimony without having to watch it live on television.

(I'm not one of those insisting they can't managed to figure out what he said if they have to read it rather than watch it)

[Volaris]

152. Speaking of that...I shouldn't I suppose,

But I really REALLY want Josh brolin to read the audiobook version of the Mueller Report as fuckin Thanos..I think THAT might assign the 'gravitas' to it that it actually deserves,. maybe heh?

[uponit7771]

165. Yes, Brolin should be up for award ... He brought real weight to that character

[Volaris]

150. Yeah , but I don't want Trump's Congressional lackeys showboating this...

To split the difference , I'd offer Barr the option: you can either give the intelligence and judicary committees the unredacted report, or Mueller WILL offer PUBLIC testimony. Choose, BITCH.

At this point, it's not even about 'trump (might have) committed impeachable or even illegal acts'...it's about a basic mininum respect for the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and CONGRESS AS A COEQUAL BRANCH, and FUCK your idea of the Unitary Executive.

[choie]

55. we, the people

paid for the fucking report. He has a duty to testify in front of us. Did Kenneth Starr testify in front of the House Judiciary committee? Yes, he did - so why the hell won't Mueller?

[StarfishSaver]

58. We the people pay for the federal courts and the President's Daily Brief, too. Do you demand to see

federal trials on television and to read the President's Daily Brief at will?

Robert Mueller isn't Ken Starr. And what he investigated is very different than who President Clinton touched and where.

And while you obviously want to see him testify, he doesn't have a "duty" to do it. His only responsibility was to investigate and deliver a report to the Attorney General. He has no obligation to testify before Congress, so any testimony he does give is above and beyond his charge.

[John Fante]

59. Trump appreciates the support.

[ChubbyStar]

94. Hey 37 posts a day and a star

Give the dude some respect.

[Volaris]

154. No, but if any president starts dropping bombs based on the Daily Brief

that Congress pays for on our behalf (and request), then for damn sure I wanna know from the Joint Chiefs, WHY.

This isn't different .
And let's say, for the sake of argument, that Mueller and Barr both worked for the Pentagon, and this WERE about bomb-dropping...and they decided that Congress DIDNT ACTUALLY, need to know about say, Nixon's bomb-dropping campaign in Cambodia, OR about Regan selling arms to the Contras...

this is about respecting Congress as a co-equal branch of government with DELINEATED CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT POWER.

this is about 'does the president get to be a fucking KING for four years at a time?'

The answer is NO, but ONLY if Congress is willing to break skulls to MAKE that real.

[still_one]

71. The Congressional Record

[Duppers]

75. Wingers don't read.

They don't, except for each other propaganda and emails. Got a brother like that.

[StarfishSaver]

80. It sounds like plenty of Democrats here don't want to read either.

[StarfishSaver]

83. ok

[StarfishSaver]

96. ok

[True Dough]

3. Why not let him do it here?

[StarfishSaver]

32. Or maybe he can answer questions directly on a DU thread

[True Dough]

48. Give him a call!

Do you have his cell number?

[ChubbyStar]

99. Holy Shit That Was Good

[AJT]

6. Perhaps he feels he could speak freely with those

who have the proper security clearance. He may feel he would have to hold back if he speaks publicly.

[StarfishSaver]

11. The public doesn't necessarily need to immediately know what Mueller says

If he's testifying to Congress privately, they can use everything he's telling them in their investigations and potential impeachment. He can also give them information that will lead them to other information they can publicly disclose.

We pay for lots of things that aren't put out in the public arena unfiltered.

I'd rather him testify in executive session to Congress than not at all. We don't need to know every sliver of information right this very minute.

And there will be a transcript released, so we're not talking about "secret" testimony.

[Thekaspervote]

100. Agree! As long as he testifies

[StarfishSaver]

8. You mean this could be more complicated than people might think?

Who knew?

[SamKnause]

9. Bullshit.

We shouldn't have to get second hand information from the republicans and the

talking heads on TV.

We paid for the investigation.

We have the right to hear the facts.

Is there no patriot with the guts to stand up to this administration ???

I am sick of all the excuses and cover ups.

[StarfishSaver]

13. We pay for investigations all the time - that doesn't mean that we must have access to every

detail that comes out of them.

For example, we pay for grand jury proceedings, but they are conducted in secret. We pay for top secret CIA investigations, but we don't have access to them. We pay for the President's Daily Brief, but that doesn't mean it should be published on the White House website every morning.

We have no idea what Mueller knows, what he would testify about and how sensitive the information is, so you we're not in any position to judge what he should and shouldn't reveal to the general public. He's willing to share it with Congress, so he's not keeping it secret or hiding anything.

[SamKnause]

24. What a load of crap.

He's willing ???

Are you kidding me ???

It is disgusting and cowardly.

I don't want second hand information.

I want him to tell us what he found in his own words.

For him to say he doesn't want to be political is a joke.

He never should have taken the job.

We have the right to know the truth.

[StarfishSaver]

30. How is it "second hand" or not "in his own words" if there's a transcript?

People can read. The information is exactly the same. Any truth he tells in public he would tell in the executive session and it would be transcribed, so what's the problem?

Too many people want a show more than they want information.

And if he were to testify in public, all they'd get is a show since the Republicans on the committee would turn it into a circus for the cameras.

Supreme Court arguments and federal trials still aren't broadcast. Does that mean that the judges, witnesses and attorneys are all cowards or the testimony, evidence and arguments are "second hand" and not in their own words?

[Downtown Hound]

40. A transcript does not have the same power over people that live testimony does. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

41. One of the reasons a transcript is actually better

What difference do his expressions or tone make if we're really just interested in the facts?

[SlogginThroughIt]

51. Inflection is a large part of communication.

It does matter.

[StarfishSaver]

54. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter how Mueller says it or tilts his head when he says it.

[Downtown Hound]

73. People are not ruled by cold, hard facts

They are ruled by emotion.

[Mister Ed]

88. I'm convinced of that after reviewing this thread. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

129. Yes, I see that

And people who are ruled by emotion think everyone else is, too.

[LanternWaste]

105. Ignoring nuance and tone...

Ignoring nuance and tone as though it were not part and parcel of language seems irrational at best. The reinforcement of another false narrative at worst.

[StarfishSaver]

106. Mueller is presenting the results of his investigation

Nuance and tone aren't as relevant as some people think.

And anyone who has been around Mueller knows that he's not very emotive. Anyone expecting to get much read much into his tone and nuance from him may be disappointed.

[Voltaire]

110. Thank you

A transcript will do just as well. Then the House can review and release it and for folks who want a show, I am certain the media will give it to them. I prefer not to have to see anyone from the GOP act like park apes during a hearing instead of doing their duty.

[Generic Other]

114. And why shouldn't we get both?

Don't most Congressional hearings get read into what is known as a Congressional Record? I doubt very much that anyone is going to be deprived of a written record.

Clearly, the majority of DUers and probably Americans expect to see Mueller appear before Congress. What's so hard about that to understand? Only Trump seems to want to block the testimony.

[StarfishSaver]

116. We have no idea that most Americans expect to see Mueller testify on television

And I doubt that Chairman Nadler is taking his cues from a handful of prolific posters on Democratic Underground

[Generic Other]

117. 73% of Americans want him to testify

So the ONLY people who don't seem to want it are the hardcore Trump base.

[StarfishSaver]

119. He is testifying

So we are getting our wish!

[Generic Other]

120. I expect to see him testify

I paid for this investigation and I expect to examine the evidence firsthand. It is a losing Republican strategy to keep stonewalling, and I am out of patience as are many Americans.

Full Transparency. Public Impeachment Hearings NOW!

[StarfishSaver]

122. Expecting to SEE him testify is different than expecting him to textify

So your poll is irrelevant.

[Bettie]

125. Words are only part of human communication

non verbal cues, including facial expression, posture, arm position, and tone are really important too.

That's why it is so hard to communicate online at times. Words don't always tell the whole story.

Frankly, Kavenaugh would have seemed significantly less awful if he had been able to parse every word and no one had seen how he behaved in his hearing.

So, yes, it makes a difference...maybe not to you, but to many it does.

[sprinkleeninow]

164. It does 'make a difference'. eom

[58Sunliner]

182. Amen. What also matters is what questions are asked and why. Also by whom.

This BS that we are not able to have transparency because we don't need it is false. Questions arise that often have a large impact on the public discourse and perception during live testimony.

[58Sunliner]

181. Such a disingenuous false equivalency. Every argument that you make-

that references some other instance that "we pay for", but don't have access to the information is just BS. Grand jury proceedings?? Do you even know what they do, how they function??
"We have no idea what Mueller knows, what he would testify about and how sensitive the information is, so you we're not in any position to judge what he should and shouldn't reveal to the general public. He's willing to share it with Congress, so he's not keeping it secret or hiding anything."

Really?? How do you know?? Oh that's right you do not. But you sure are happy to assume that closed door proceedings, which usually mean transcripts will not be made public, or will be heavily redacted, will be made public. But somehow you are content to assume facts not in evidence. Why is that?? Please don't bother answering my rhetorical question, because I will not bother answering what I see as disingenuous rhetoric on your part.

[Downtown Hound]

39. He needs to stop being a coward and speak freely

If he holds back because he's scared then he's no patriot.

[emmaverybo]

151. You should not go around calling a recognized combat hero a coward. Or unpatriotic. You honestly

Last edited Sun May 26, 2019, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)

can’t say either things about him without your knowing more.

[Downtown Hound]

166. Whatever. I'm sick of glorifying combat veterans as if they're somehow above reproach.

There are many types of courage. If Mueller's too scared to do right by the American people and the constitution then I don't care how many battles he's fought in. He's still a coward. Being a combat veteran is not a get out of jail free card for dereliction of duty when your country is under siege by a tyrant.

[emmaverybo]

168. I concede that you don't need to glorify Mueller's combat service record, consider his

accomplishments as an FBI director, or his diligence and leadership in laying out a roadmap for a case that is now being used by both pundits and public at large to argue for impeachment or future criminal charges, in forming your own view of Mueller’s character or patriotism.
But you sure don’t need to use personal insult and name-calling in your argument that Mueller has a duty to give televised, open testimony.
In the end, combat heroism aside, you don’t know all the factors motivating his desire for closed door sessions instead or open.

[Downtown Hound]

169. We the people have a right to know what happened

We paid for his investigation. If he didn't want to be the center of a public spectacle, he should have resigned.

[emmaverybo]

170. Oh resigning would have been great for us. Let's follow that one through...nt

[Downtown Hound]

171. Or he could just do the job he was hired to do and tell the American people, to their face, what

happened. No more waiting or excuses. I've been a big Mueller defender in the past. But he needs to step up and tell the truth about what happened. Nothing more. Nothing less. And I'm done both making and hearing excuses for him not to.

[emmaverybo]

172. First, the House has to decide if it accepts his offer or not. If not, it can choose to subpoena

him for not being willing to testify in an open televised hearing format.
That is up to the Judiciary Committee as Intelligence wants closed doors.
As it stands, he is not covering up the truth, but from what we know so far, willing to testify without cameras, which I am personally more in favor of as I think television distorts proceedings.
Why don’t we have public Supreme Court hearings?
I am tired too—of the argument that only the medium of tv will reveal the truth.Also very tired of
the job description argument.

[Downtown Hound]

173. Too bad. Mueller owes it to the American people

Be tired all you want. If he does anything less than testify publicly than he's a coward in my book.

[empedocles]

10. Since Mueller's beginning in this process; Mueller's overall long term strategic sense [building

a very strong, limited, powerful case v. a wider ranging vulnerable, 'partisan' case], has been much stronger and more effective, than many ardent, short term tacticians would like to admit.

[StarfishSaver]

16. IKR

But people think they are entitled to have all of the information this very minute and if they don't get it - even if the information is being shared fully with Congress - it is a coverup.

Next people will be arguing they need access to the President's Daily Brief and other top secret information because they have a right to know.

[maryallen]

45. And you know this how, Chin?

[spanone]

12. In that case we'll get the Democrats VS. Republicans versions

People really need to hear for themselves.

[SamKnause]

15. Exactly.

I am sick of this shit.

I don't give a damn if he doesn't want to testify in public.

He shouldn't have taken the job if he doesn't have the guts to tell the public what he found.

[StarfishSaver]

19. This has nothing to do with "guts"

[StarfishSaver]

87. Then why are you so pissed off that he won't testify in public?

You don't trust him to do the right thing anyway. If you think he always "act in a way that aids the good ol' boys," what makes you think he wouldn't do that in his public testimony?

[StarfishSaver]

95. Barr's summary was in writing. He didn't present it initially on television

It was effective because he released his written summary weeks before the public had a chance to read the actual report, giving him a 3-week head start in shaping the narrative. Had the report been released at the same time as the summary, Barr's version wouldn't have had nearly the effect that it had. That impact wasn't because people saw Barr on television talking about it.

Everything doesn't need to be on television to be effective. It's not like the transcript will be released and no one will talk about it, discuss it, analyze it, synthesize it, explain it, etc. on television or that if he testifies in publicly, millions of people will watch his entire testimony live and in color.

[boston bean]

14. Who the fuck does he think he is.

My god.

There is not one fucking republican who will do the right thing.

Patriot my ass.

[SamKnause]

17. They are the most unpatriotic fuckers I have ever seen.

They can see this country is being torn apart and they won't lift a finger to get the truth out.

They all sicken me to my core.

[gldstwmn]

26. Agreed. So far the furthest they've been willing to go is Tillerson

with his "we don't share the same values." And that was behind closed doors.

[smirkymonkey]

74. Grrrr!

I am so fucking sick of this shit!

[Bettie]

126. I think that Republicans have adjusted their definition of "Patriot"

to mean "Party Over Country, Always".

[StarfishSaver]

130. And some Democrats have adjusted it to mean "only if f they do it my way"

[redstateblues]

156. Thanks for saying what everyone else is skirting around

[gldstwmn]

18. He is enabling Trump. Sorry there's no other way to put it.

[StarfishSaver]

23. How does telling Congress what he knows "enabling Trump"?

He's not trying to keep anything secret. He's just trying not to broadcast sensitive information to the world - and to not be part of a circus that the Republicans would insist on making if his testimony were public - which I think is completely appropriate. I'm fine with him testifying to Congress. They'll know what to do with the information.

[gldstwmn]

34. A dozen or so cases of obstruction

and he leaves it to a hobbled Congress to sort out? In his position he gets to choose what side of history he is on. He could have issued a charging statement but instead he deferred to some bs position paper which he knows won't hold up in court. Not to mention his "good friend" the Attorney General engages in a whitewash of his work of two years so he writes him a letter. He's a good prosecutor but he's also a company man, not a fucking patriot.

[sprinkleeninow]

57. I shouldn't have had such expectations of him that I did. 😏

[sprinkleeninow]

53. Who am I to say, but in my estimation all this has gone on long enough.

He agreed to testify, correct?
Now it's according to his preference?

A transcript. Who will read it? How will it not be muddied, misinterpreted, twisted?

[Pompoy]

21. If it frees him to expand on his answers

Maybe he doesn't want to show up and have to keep saying, this is classified or whatever.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Exactly

The testimony would be very disjointed and incomplete.

And the public would be tee-totally pissed off if they had to go into executive session every other question.

[Volaris]

157. That wouldn't be necessary if Barr would release an unredacted report

To the intelligence and Judicary Committees, respectively..

[former9thward]

140. The U.S and Russia have no extradition treaty.

[former9thward]

145. It is a two way street.

Russia would then ask for Americans. You up for that?

[Chin music]

146. Far as I know, There's no Americans he can ask for. Bc we arent attacking his country.

No, I'm not up for any decisions made by, for, or with trump. The question was more one to point out, that, it's really just a bunch of bullshit, this "getting along w russia" bit. And it SHOWS. That's kinda the thrust of what I meant. If russia is sincere, hand those people over, get out of ukraine, hand back Crimea, and then we can talk. Know what i mean vern?

[former9thward]

147. Who is going to get Russia out of Crimea?

No American president. That is a lost cause if there ever was one.

[Chin music]

148. That was a list that started these sanctions under Obama, you know, for CONTEXT.

Russia and America can't be friends whether don likes it or not. They are human rights violators.
I get the impression you say stuff like that to keep beating a dead horse. Nice chatting w ya.

[gldstwmn]

174. Exactly. That is how Snowden ended up there.

[ooky]

21. I'm beginning to think Mueller has a phobia.

Does he hide in a closet all day to keep from having to interact with humanoids?

[Jarqui]

36. A whole bunch of this crap continues because he has said nothing

The country needs him to stand up and tell it what has gone on with Trump, Russia, et al.

His silence to date has been damaging enough and is a form of being complicit if it continues.

I heard so many great things about him .. but it appears that greatness is fleeting.

[Chin music]

52. Maybe he'll have an epiphany on Memorial Day. He's not the only hero.

Last edited Fri May 24, 2019, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Add...Here's my problem w Nadler making it ok to testify in private. That requires NADLER to come out and sell what happened in there and to hand us the truth. I love Jerry, but, the guy doesnt scream charisma to me, about such serious things. We need to test the testimony w our own eyes. PS...we havent hardened the voting system yet, we need this information so we know how and why and where the russians attacked us. It's central to what we've been leading up to.
Mueller needs to stop this shit or expalin himself so everybody else isnt endless attributing his mind. Me included.Unless he speaks though, how are we definitively going to do that? This isn't Hillarys emails, or Benghazi, it's for real shit.

[bdamomma]

38. At least

he is testifying, let it alone. If he wants to do it private there will still be a transcript.

[cynatnite]

44. Fine, testify in private. Just get there and testify, even if it's in private....

The repubs will hate it no matter what. A transcript will speak just as loud as a public testimony.

[meadowlander]

47. Yeah, tough shit. The American public deserves to hear what its $35 million was spent on.

If there are genuine national security issues he can't speak to then he can always decline to answer in the open session.

[SHRED]

56. I don't recall Ken Starr hiding like this

Fuck!

[LovingA2andMI]

60. This Is Some BS!!!

Don't Want To Hear Mueller Defended AGAIN, EVER DAMN IT!

[BigmanPigman]

63. He doesn't want to say Barr told him to shut it down

or to write that he couldn't recommend indictment in full public view. Tough shit! Say it!

[watoos]

64. Why all the shade thrown at Mueller?

I have no problem reading a transcript. The truth is the truth whether it is spoken or written.

Also, we haven't seen the Mueller report yet, all we have seen is a redacted Mueller report. How easily people fall for right wing talking points, it's scary.

[SamKnause]

65. My post has nothing to do with right wing talking points.

What an insult.

[watoos]

72. I never said it did,

I don't think it's fair to bash Mueller when we haven't even seen his report. Once we get to see Mueller's summaries and the grand jury information, and the entire report, I bet Mueller will not get sworn at.

Congress better get on the ball, time to start an impeachment inquiry so we can properly evaluate the Mueller report.

[StarfishSaver]

68. People don't want a transcript the same reason they haven't actually read the report

They're not really interested in obtaining the facts. They want a show on the teevee.

[Duppers]

78. It's the American nature.

Especially the wingers'.

[StarfishSaver]

79. It's doesn't seem to be limited to them

[Duppers]

82. Yep, that's why I said "especially."

[StarfishSaver]

84. I hear you

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

127. Exactly this.

[emmaverybo]

66. He did his job. Now stop blaming and do yours. We are the ones to make a difference; we, the people,

through our representatives, as it should be. Stop blaming and get going.

[StarfishSaver]

70. Thank you for the sanity!

[Raven]

109. He hasn't finished his job. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

132. "we, the people, through our representatives"

You can MAKE your representatives do what you want?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

133. Yes. Thank you for this.

[C_U_L8R]

67. My first feeling was indignation

But this could possibly be a smart move. If Mueller went straight to tv, Republicans would turn it into a complete shitshow. With closed testimony, the facts would come out first. We can always call Mueller back for public testimony afterward. Just a thought.

[StarfishSaver]

69. Exactly

And he surely has information that will lead Congress to other information that was out of his purview. Some of that doesn't need to be done in public.

[uponit7771]

149. There's nothing stopping them from turning into a shitshow and private

[ooky]

77. What about a compromise?

Mueller answers the Republicans "questions" in private. Their stuff is all grandstanding anyway. Then answer ours in public.

[Beringia]

85. I couldn't imagine him testifying in public

He would need a lawyer to advise him on what to say. There is much classified information he can't share openly.

[StarfishSaver]

97. He also testified numerous times in closed session as FBI Director.

I don't think Barr was behind that.

[Buckeyeblue]

103. In some ways the problem is that there are too many damn secrets

In our governments, in our corporations, in our communities and in our families.

What could Trump have done that is so bad that it has to be discussed in private?

Or is it that Mueller knows if he speaks in public the hate machine will be turned on him?

[StarfishSaver]

107. This testimony wouldn't be "secret"

The fact that something is not broadcast live on television in real time doesn't make it "secret" even in this livestreamed, breaking news all day, reality show television world we live in today.

[Buckeyeblue]

111. I thought when Congress went into closed session the transcripts were not necessarily made available

[StarfishSaver]

123. You're right

I need to be more precise in my terms.

Thanks!

[brush]

176. The problem with that is it will have to be read. Not many have even read...

his report. IMO the American people paid for his report and he should step up to the plate and publicly refute Barr's lies about the report and at the same time make it clear that he found several instances of trump's obstuction of justice.

Most people just don't read, especially something 400 plus pages long. Nixon would've served out his term if the Watergate hearings and John Dean's testimony weren't broadcast.

[StarfishSaver]

179. A hearing transcript isn't a 400-page report

He will give an opening statement, which will probably tell everyone much of what they need to hear. The only thing that wouldn't be broadcast are his answers to the questions and Republican showboating not intended to elicit any answers to any questions.

This doesn't compare to Watergate in terms of public exposure and impact of the testimony. The Watergate hearings occurred before our 24/7 broadcast news and punditry world. People watched the hearings on television on the four networks because there were few other places to get the information being communicated and, unless they watched it in real time or caught the 6:00 news. And even then, many people didn't watch the hearings because they were working and had to get much of their information by reading about it. Now, unlike during Watergate, people will have plenty of chances to hear what he said - in addition to seeing his opening statement which would be broadcast.

There's no guarantee that people will actually watch it all the way we political junkies do. It they haven't bothered to read the report or listen to the endless commentary about it, it's not certain they would sit down and watch his testimony, either - or that watching it would have any greater impact on them than reading or hearing about it.

[brush]

184. Yes, there are many more news sources now, and with them...

just as many more chances to sway their coverage with whatever agenda they have.

If as you say, his opening statement will be broadcast there will be less chance to distort it.

Have you heard definitively that his statement will be broadcast?

[emmaverybo]

155. I find some of these angry and name calling responses not at all a good look for liberals.

We are not a pack of hyenas deserving our pound from Mueller.

He gave a roadmap to further action, indicted dozens, and so far has managed, despite hideous insults from both sides, not to become a political hostage. He is also going to testify.

If what he discovered is to maintain credibility in the public eye, it is best he not be a part of a spectacle or anything resembling a show trial.
The House has options.

The man did his job. He was hired to do an investigation and a report based on it. He will as well answer questions before the House. And there are ongoing investigations.

[Chin music]

159. Who ever said to mueller he gets to deliver a non political report?

I never heard that as a condition. Is that a new defense to testifying in court? I can't bc what i say COULD BE interpreted as political? Come on. He didn't do his job until he testifies, and walks the nation through his report.

[emmaverybo]

160. A hearing is not court. It's up to the House to accept his conditions or not. You have your view

of what doing his job means, an opinion many share. I don’t. I’d be satisfied if he would testify truthfully behind doors and answer all that he legally can.

[Chin music]

161. Still in front of an investigative body where you are sworn to tell the truth.

Behind doors leads to many interpretations in my mind. I'm for the original deal. In public. What's there so bad to hide? Why would you give trump the benefit of hiding anything else? We just disagree. Mr Cicillini and Mr Raskin and others prefer an open report, I do too.

[sprinkleeninow]

163. The clown show emanating from the WH has turned any prior semblance of

law/order and decency into a 'spectacle'.

[melman]

167. The intensity of the Mueller defenders is pretty curious

What's the motivation there?

[gldstwmn]

175. Good question.

[MineralMan]

178. While I'd prefer hearing from him in a public format,

Since the House is now Democratic, a closed hearing might well let him provide information he couldn't provide in public.

So, I guess I won't be the one deciding any of this...

[Pachamama]

180. I believe he wants to prevent the "Performance" by GOP for Propaganda - eventually he will testify

...in Public.

If the cameras aren't there, the words appearing by GOP in transcript don't have the same propaganda effect they hope to achieve when they are ranting drama queens (aka Lindsay Graham or Jim Jordan style) and instead they even look like ignorant idiots.

The words that Mueller will speak will be very clear and consistent and forever memorialized and then there can be follow up meetings including public ones.

I know many want to slam Mueller, but I have a differing opinion and feel that he is a loyal American Patriot and that he follows the law. I also think he knows there are sinister players at work and he is making sure that his work will not be trashed and that the Democratic Congress can follow the breadcrumbs.