Robert Mueller is no patriot if he refuses to testify at an open hearing.

[milestogo]

He knew the job might involve this when he took it, and there is no weaseling out now.

[SunSeeker]

1. It is offensive that he thinks testifying in an open hearing is "political."

No, Robert, it's the LAW, as in the U.S. Constitution. That thing you swore to uphold. Congress questioning witnesses in open hearings is how it DOES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of oversight. You got a problem with transparency? Don't like our Constitutional democracy?

[StarfishSaver]

6. Where does it say in the Constitution that all Congressional testimony must be televised?

[SunSeeker]

20. 1st Am. press freedom & Congress has Constitutionally mandated oversight powers.

The witnesses don't call the shots. This is a matter of national importance and utterly newsworthy--the press should have freedom to televise it. The American people have a right to SEE their government in action. That is why there is a space for the public in a courtroom. Seeing how a person says something is just as informative as what he says. A transcript does not reveal that. You should know that counsel.

Mueller should be treated like every other witness before Congress on a matter of national importance. He needs to get in front of the cameras and talk!

[StarfishSaver]

21. The First Amendment doesn't require that Congress conduct all of its hearings in public

You don't seem to realize that Congress conducts closed hearings ALL the time.

[SunSeeker]

27. Well of course there are exceptions for national security. That is not a justification here.

Last edited Fri May 24, 2019, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Of course I realize there are many closed hearings. What a silly assertion.

But the press must have access on matters of great national importance where there is testimony to be had that does not involve national security secrets. See, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart ( 1976).427 U.S. 539. Congress would have to justify barring the press from that. Certainly the portion of his testimony that involves national security secrets can be in closed session, but the public has a right to see the rest. There is no justification for impinging press freedom by not televising it, or only releasing a written transcript.

Mueller wants it all in closed session, whether it involves national security secrets or not. That is wrong on so many levels.

[StarfishSaver]

37. Congress has closed hearings all the time. Do every one of those hearings violate the Constitution?

[SunSeeker]

41. Of course not. But this one would, for the reasons I stated above.

This is a matter of great national importance and great national interest. There is no justification to bar the press from the non-secret portions of his testimony.

[StarfishSaver]

45. Because of that clause in the Constitution that reads "The right of a free press shall not be

infringed and that means the press must be allowed to televise all Congressional hearings, unless they don't involve matters of national important and great national interest and then it's ok for them to be conducted in executive session and not shown on teevee.""

So glad to see you know your Constitution.

[SunSeeker]

49. You're welcome.

[EffieBlack]

54. I don't think this colloquy went as well for you as you think it did

[SunSeeker]

58. I don't think this colloquy went as well for your friend as you think it did. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

94. Bless your heart. nt

[Instant Liberal]

18. I think you got it wrong

Why would he testify on TV when he could actually divulge more in a closed hearing. Some people have a distorted view of patriotism.

[SunSeeker]

22. What more would he divulge in a closed hearing?

If it involves national security secret information, that means we won't get a transcript of it anyway, so it will not be divulged to us. That is what should be discussed in the closed hearing. Everything else should be in an open hearing.

[kstewart33]

25. No he won't.

The complete testimony will be released in transcript form to the public.

[StarfishSaver]

39. They would redact anything that could compromise national security, as they do with any other

closed-door hearing (which occurs all the time).

[emmaverybo]

86. Yes! Very high-minded some people. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. Tried warnin peeps not to trust that ahole & caught shit for it but the results speak for themselves

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[procon]

2. If the transcript of his testimony is going to be

release to the public anyway, then what is the point of hiding from the camera?

C'mon dude, man up and do the right thing. Your country needs you!

[milestogo]

3. He doesn't want to be on television news.

And if he's not on television, a lot of people who only get their news from the tv will never know what was said.

Mueller is a public figure whether he likes it or not, and he owes us public testimony on this incredibly important matter.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

4. WTF is wrong with these people who think there's still some magical

set of rules the motherfuckers in charge long ago dismantled? Keep playing this holier-than-thou bullshit while the fascists keep consolidating power and entrenching themselves. Let me know how that shit works out when our cyber security is outsourced to Russia and Saudi Arabia.

[UniteFightBack]

5. His career will be TARNISHED if he does not testify in public. nt

[StarfishSaver]

8. No, actually it won't

[UniteFightBack]

10. In my eyes IT WILL. DONE. nt

[StarfishSaver]

23. Ok

[dem4decades]

7. Can we get over the Muelle is a savior bullshit. He's a Republican

And a friend of Barr's. God forbid their wives can't be friends at ther club as Russia destroys out democracy.

[redstateblues]

56. Nailed it! Very simple

[GusBob]

9. Our Democracy is not in peril. Its dead

[triron]

64. Seems to have a fatal disease doesn't it? nRepublicans

[cynatnite]

11. He's a decorated marine who fought in Vietnam...

He was also head of the FBI for both Repub and Dem presidents.

You disagree with his not testifying, but it does not mean he's no patriot. Very few Americans have done what this man has for our country.

[milestogo]

12. The present moment is the most important moment of his life and how he responds to it

will affect American history, which is far more important than any individual. I hope he can step into the moment and be the man our country needs him to be.

Its not about the word patriot, its about doing the right thing in the moment.

[cynatnite]

13. Then don't accuse him of not being a patriot after the decades of service...

Say "it's about doing the right thing in the moment".

I take personal offense that someone would accuse a fellow vet of not being a patriot. That's what the RW does. We're better than that.

[milestogo]

14. I just said that.

But no I am not going to edit my post to please you, so hide it.

[cynatnite]

15. If you didn't mean patriot, you shouldn't have used it in the first place.n/t

[Hekate]

28. Well maybe we should have a poll on gratuitous insults. Here's my vote: take it back.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. Just curious but what did fighting in Vietnam do for our country?

[StarfishSaver]

47. Did you actually type that out and then hit POST so that other people could see it?

I'm not a veteran but that even pisses ME off.

[EffieBlack]

51. Wow.

Really?

[Beringia]

68. It killed 58,000 US soldiers

[Hoyt]

98. I agree, the only heroes from Vietnam were folks like John Kerry, draftees,

people who joined up to keep from being drafted, and those who spoke up.

Folks like Mueller, who either killed innocent Asians with glee or out of some sense of duty, were not heroes.

[emmaverybo]

48. Thank you for the breath of awareness in this sea of anger, vituperative ignorance, which I see as

a significant sign, a rejection of this complete house of rigged cards we have all been subjected to.
It is just that this tantrum, peevish smearing is not more worthy of us than the Con hit games.
I hope that the lashing out against all objectivity will exhaust itself.
It does no favors for sincere and patriotic liberals.

[Pachamama]

88. Thank you for stating this....I was going to say the exact same thing.

Calling Robert Mueller not a Patriot is very wrong.

My father knew Mueller and said he was the most honorable and patriotic man he knew.

[napi21]

16. I completely understand why he doesn't want cameras present, which is all he's really requesting.

Many times I've heard congressmen say, most people in both chambers are reasonable, intelligent people, BUT, bring in a live camera and all that goes out the window! They believe they have to put on a show for their constituents. They pose ridiculous questions to show their constituents just how mean and nasty they are. All those same congressmen tell you the acting doesn't happen when there are no cameras.

Mueller doesn't want to be part of that behavior and I don't blame him. There will be a transcript of the testimony released and the public will be able to see just what he said.

[kstewart33]

33. Who will read through a transcript.

Very few read even a part of the Mueller report. But they'll watch Mueller. Sky high ratings.

[StarfishSaver]

42. You assume that the American public is as eager to hear from Mueller as you are

They may or may not watch Mueller.

If they won't bother reading a transcript, they won't necessarily be glued to their televisions either (especially in the middle of the day)

[EffieBlack]

52. A public willing only to pay attention to what they see on live television

and doesn't bother to get their news any other way (like television news or God forbid, a newspaper, whether print or online) perhaps deserves yhe kind of government they end up with.

[Codeine]

55. I'd read the transcript way before I'd watch.

I read fast, and people communicate far too slowly.

[StarfishSaver]

57. Me, too

And I could skip the pontificating and skip right to what he says.

How interesting that it turns out that a whole lot of people who think they're intellectually superior to pretty much everyone in public life find reading to be too much of a chore for them to bother with.

[napi21]

60. I expect all news channels will at least read the highlights. The casble channels will read more

than just the highlights, but their audience is limited to the most political people. You're right, there wuilkl be a fairly large % of the public who will not hear anything because they don't watch the news or cab'e channels. However, that segment wouldn't have watched Mueller's live broadcast if it happened, so it really doesn't matter.

[EffieBlack]

67. Not sure why Robert Mueller testifying about a report he's already published

will suddenly turn public opinion against Trump and in favor of impeachment, ala John Dean.

The point of Congress bringing in Mueller is to fill in gaps in one particular area of one investigation. He's not the narrator of the entire story.

And now that I see the over-the-top, almost unhinged reaction from folks here to the possibility that he might - gasp! - testify in closed session, I'm quite certain that nothing Mueller could offer in public testimony - short of showing a surveillance video of Trump shooting someone on Pennsylvania Avenue and having sex with a farm animals, and announcing that, he'd forced Trump to sign a confession and letter of resignation, and even as he spoke, FBI agents were on their way to the White House to arrest Trump and throw him into Fairfax County lockup to await trial - would satisfy them.

[Thekaspervote]

83. +1000

[StarfishSaver]

91. This

You do have a way with words, Effie!

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Do you feel better having said that?

[Instant Liberal]

19. I'm not sure you understand what patriotism means.

The man has done more in service to this country than many entire families. Why would he subject himself to partisan smears and political brownie points that would make juicy sound bites for FOX and Trump? He could divulge more in s closed hearing without the ridiculous antics from the right on display. Also, he's a very private person who doesn't like the spotlight. Forcing him to sit as a spectacle in front of hostile partisans seeking to impugn his character and try to destroy his credibility for several hours on live TV is a bit much. I wouldn't do it.

[kstewart33]

30. And Fox won't do the same with a transcript?

Mueller has testified many times before Congress in public proceedings as FBI director.

The public won't read the transcript just like only 20% read any part of the Mueller Report.

But they will tune in to watch Mueller. The ratings will be sky high.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Mueller also testified many times in private.

[emmaverybo]

50. Thank you. Though we should not have to defend such a man, you did it well.

[Honeycombe8]

24. I said when the report came out...it was a disappointment.

The disappointment was Mueller's "judgment" after seeing the evidence. And it was just judgment. Another counselor could have arrived at a different conclusion.

Maybe he's scared of Trump. I would be, too. But maybe he doesn't want his words taken out context and run on a news loop 24/7, which is what would happen. He doesn't seem to be a theater kind of man.

[Hekate]

26. Maybe he hopes to retain just a shred of personal privacy

[SunSeeker]

31. We're not asking him about his love life. nt

[JoeOtterbein]

29. Mueller is a Reagan Republican first. And they never speak publicly against...

...another Republican in public!

[watoos]

35. I have no problem reading a transcript.

The main point is if he will be restricted in what he is allowed to say.

I want to see some of Mueller's team subpoenaed to testify. I would much rather see Andrew Weissman testify in a public hearing than Mueller.

[Hoyt]

36. I'm fine with him testifying in a closed hearing that Democrats are part of.

Truthfully, both sides turn these hearings into an opportunity to promote each committee member. Go for the truth, not a video opportunity.

My guess is Mueller will beat around the bush just like he did in his report.

[SunSeeker]

65. We need to get the truth out. That is the whole point of these hearings.

Sure, there will be grandstanding, but Mueller can handle it, and so can we.

Only wonks will read the transcript. If we want the American people to know about Trump's crimes, the hearing must be televised.

[Hoyt]

95. Ignorant white wing GOPers are going to hear what the want, and it will favor trump. Mueller

Mueller isn't going to come out and say, "trump is a traitor and guilty." He's going to say the same BS he put in his report, that either side can use.

If I were him, I would not appear in public either, unless he decides to set the record straight. Don't think he has it in him, unfortunately.

[EffieBlack]

96. And when he doesn't say, "Trump is a traitor and I'm on my way to arrest him," the people demanding

his live testimony will trash him every which away - which is one of the points of the whole "Eff Mueller if he doesn't testify in public!" uproar.

[Leith]

38. Just what we needed right now - another wedge

I'm going to wait and see how it all works out before questioning a person's character, the House committees, what will and won't be said, and so on.

Go ahead and work that wedge like it's the jaws of life. I prefer to use some of the last remaining bits of my patience.

In the meantime, enjoy a little song.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Thank you

The kneejerk reactions are astounding.

[Leith]

46. This evening, I am going for gentle humor

mainly because I was amused by the "very stable genius" revival and a healthy dose of Randy Rainbow. It's either that or have my perfectly reasonable takedown get hidden.

[longime demolurker]

70. Confused...

Are you a Democrat?

[smirkymonkey]

53. Thanks! I needed that right about now.

Randy is brilliant! I hadn't seen that one either. I just love him. He's so talented.

[radical noodle]

59. It eliminates the grand standing by the repugs

I'm not sure he's wrong.

[SunSeeker]

63. It eliminates getting the truth out there. How many people have read the Mueller Report?

Probably about the same as will read a lifeless transcript.

But everyone will tune in to see Mueller speak.

The general rule is that House hearings are open to the press and public:

House Committees

As a general rule, House committee hearings and meetings are open to the public. House committees may vote to close a meeting or hearing if disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House. They must announce the date, place, and subject matter of hearings to the public at least a week in advance in the Daily Digest and on their websites.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-congress

I see no reason Mueller should be indulged so he can testify in a closed hearing where the press are barred. Only that portion of his testimony, if it were public, that might endanger national security or compromise law enforcement, should be in closed session.

He is a public servant. This is part of his job. He should know that. No one wants to be questioned on camera, but that is one of the prices of our democracy. We must have government transparency

[radical noodle]

66. I think it depends on the public

statement he makes prior to adjourning to the testimony. If he does that, and he does it well, it will eliminate GOP talking points to the cameras, while making the case loud and clear.

[SunSeeker]

69. After reading his Report, I don't have high hopes for that.

Besides, we have a right to have our representatives ask him questions THEY want him to answer in front of the public, not let him drone on in legalese talking about what HE wants to talk about. That subverts the whole point of a hearing.

[radical noodle]

71. Strange

I think the report is very detailed and certainly makes the case against trump.

[SunSeeker]

72. The problem was he bent over backwards for Trump when he should not have.

It really made me question Mueller's judgment.

Stuff like when said it is hard to put a value on the help Russians provided---so he gave it $0 value! Thus, he knocked out an element of the crime.

Or not even saying whether he thought Trump committed the crime of obstruction, because it would be "unfair" to Trump.

[Billy Ray Joe Bob.]

61. Trust him?

Never forget he is a republican. Trust him at your own peril.

[Meowmee]

73. It is a big mistake

If he does not testify publically, it needs to be done in open hearings. I never had much faith in him and the idea of not being political is just pure bs if that is true.

[chillfactor]

74. sorry I do not agree.....

it would be a media circus with recons playing a pivotal role......I would be happy to dead the transcripts of a closed session. More sane atmosphere.

[SunSeeker]

82. Nice Freudian slip typo. Yes, the transcipts would be "dead."

Few Americans are going to read a lifeless transcript. But everyone will tune in to hear Mueller speak.

The point of these hearings is to get the truth out to the American people. Can't do that without the press and video. Americans don't really read.

We can handle a media circus. That is democray. Dems are in charge in the House. It won't get out of control like how the GOP hijacked the Kavanaugh hearing with Ford. The GOP was in charge of the Kavanaugh hearing and they let it get out of control, particularly Lindsey Graham. You think Dems in charge would let Lindsey carry on like that?

[marlakay]

75. They said on Rachael's show

He doesn’t want to be political, he wants it to be professional not for one side or the other.

But facts are facts and if they go against one side that’s the way it is. He is a republican so it has to be hard. I am imagining if I had to testify against a democrat president. I would do it if it was justified but it wouldn’t be easy. And I am not sure I would want other dems tearing me apart for doing the right thing.

So if I put myself in his shoes that’s the only way I am not pissed at him right now.

[standingtall]

81. He needs to testify publicly and closed door hearing is next to useless

we need his testimony to clarify his findings before the American. Most people will not read the transcript after a closed door hearing and republicans will lie about what the transcripts say anyway. They may still lie if he testifies publicly too, but it will be much harder to get away with. Honestly the way I see it if he's not going to testify publicly than he might as well not testify at all.

[StarfishSaver]

92. It's only useless if you don't understand the point of congressional testimony

The primary purpose of congressional hearing testimony is to provide information to Congress in order to assist them in the performance of their legislative and oversight functions. Those functions require Congress to obtain facts and details under oath from witnesses who can provide information they need as part of investigations and other inquiries. Testimony does not need to be taken in public in order to do that. In fact, such testimony sometimes is more effectively given outside of public view and Congress frequently takes testimony in private in order to obtain the most open and frank communication possible.

Testimony given in public is often useful for the public, but public consumption in real time is not the primary purpose for such testimony.

[standingtall]

93. It will be absolutely useless in this situation without his public testimony congress

will be hindered in making their case to the American people if he only testifies in private. He needs clarify the findings of his report before the American people after Barr misrepresented it which is one of the primary reasons congress wants testimony in the first place. You can bet whatever the transcripts of private meeting say it will be badly misrepresented by republicans the same way they did with the report. A public testimony will be far more powerful.

[Thekaspervote]

84. Who is going to be sooo convinced following public testimony that are not already that dotard is a

Crook and a con man?? You will never change his batshit crazy 30% base... never. And the gopeee is not going to change, they will continue to support their crook in chief. Fux news would spin it to the point that it may actually damage the Dems and the report itself

[SunSeeker]

85. By your logic, we shouldn't do any oversight hearings. Good luck with that.

If our leadership has the same belief, we're dead in 2020.

Fortunately, I know they don't.

[emmaverybo]

87. Oh honest to Gawd. Just get him on the record! What is the problem? He's done more than

any average person’s patriotic duty in his lifetime.

[FM123]

89. These are Kardashian times where so many folks live and die by the TV

While I spend much time reading, I know that is not the case with our idiotic president or a lot of his deplorables - if Mueller does not go on TV and publicly explain everything that trump and his team did, then for them it is like it never even happened (transcript or no transcript)

[milestogo]

90. If you take a job investigating a clown, at some point you're going to have to go to the circus.

And you can't ask them to empty the stands just before the show.

[EffieBlack]

97. Taking a job investigating clowns doesn't mean you have to ride around in the clown car with them