Discussion: Nadler Still Wants Mueller To Testify On TV To Gin Up Public Impeachment Support

cervantes · May 31, 2019, 7:34pm

In an interview with WNYC, Nadler said that he still wants special counsel Robert Mueller to testify

Wake me when he issues a subpoena.

bonvivant · May 31, 2019, 7:36pm

When I said Pelosi would not be likely to impeach, I never once said she should. Actually, I agree with her for different reasons.
Democrats should keep fighting and winning in court. Start public hearings " Benghazi style" after the Summer recess. Use the time before then to get your ducks in row and collect damning evidence and testimony. Keep the hearings going until October 30th, 2020.
He cannot be impeached without Republican support. Until we get it, forget impeaching and hurt the MF as much as possible. Give the Republicans their own medicine in return. They would not hesitate if it was reversed.
Not everything is going to stick. Trump’s not that popular. We do not have convince more than a few percent of the people who are not hardcore Trump supporters.
Save the Mueller testimony until October of 2020 when it will hurt Trump the most.

seveneagles · May 31, 2019, 7:36pm

Note to Giuliani: they did NOT eviscerate Cohen.

urk · May 31, 2019, 7:36pm

OK-- so my baseline position is that impeachment is a constitutional duty, politics or no politics, etc, and that actually its politically good, especially in the presidential race (tho not necessarily for Dems in swing districts, but it might not be so bad for them after all, yada yada) Etc.

But its not like more public support is a bad thing. Waiting is a bad thing, (weakens the argument for moral urgency, derelicts constitutional duty) but it looks like they are going to do that anyway. So waiting while having a public dialogue that helps broaden public support via getting the facts out there, and invites us to make some noise to them and everyone around us about the urgency of impeachment, is a lot better than pretending that Trump wants to be impeached.*

*Which I don’t think Pelosi necessarily believes. I think she’s making a calculus based on swing district Democrats and the (important-but everything is around here) desire to preserve the house majority. I think that the idea that he wants to be impeached comes more from wanting a reason that doesn’t sound overcautious than firm belief.

marymaryquitecontrary · May 31, 2019, 7:37pm

Mueller shouldn’t be made to carry the burden all by himself. Barr and Rosenstein are still on federal payroll. They should have to testify before he does.

seamus42 · May 31, 2019, 7:37pm

It’s well-known that exposure to primary sources causes tetter, psoriasis, and “book learnin’.”
Better safe than sorry.

zenicetus · May 31, 2019, 7:38pm

It would be worth it just hear Mueller answer the following question, preferably asked by Harris because she won’t allow him to obfuscate without making it very obvious that’s what he’s doing:

“You said in your most recent public statement that if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. That’s too cute by half. Isn’t it the same thing as saying he committed a crime?”

Let him answer that in front of TV cameras.

seveneagles · May 31, 2019, 7:38pm

Thank you both for continuing to stand up for nuance and making the case.

urk · May 31, 2019, 7:39pm

Oh, but also, “gin up” in the subheadline on the main page is a terrible choice of words. The idea is to more widely share the facts/make the facts harder to ignore, in order to encourage support. “Gin up” has the connotation of manufacturing something phony, more through effort than substance. That’s not this.

andyolsen · May 31, 2019, 7:39pm

This is great. A Democrat who actually attempts top shape polls instead of just following polls. More of this please!

While I’m at it, it’s so strange that people think impeaching Trump will help him win. Trump will deceitfully use whatever decision they make on impeachment.

If they don’t impeach he will claim vindication
If they do start impeachment, he will claim victimization.

No candidate is made stronger by any degree of the impeachment process.

Personally, I hope they open an impeachment inquiry and continue it for the next 6-7 months.

menocchio · May 31, 2019, 7:40pm

Exactly! Let the American people hear from those “angry Democrats.” Perhaps building into Mueller’s public testimony by first hearing from key members of Meuller’s staff (and other key players) is the way to start engendering additional public interest and support for impeachment. Let Mueller’s testimony be the grand finale, a strategic crescendo.

pshah · May 31, 2019, 7:41pm

Even if all he did was spent several hours just recounting each of the over 120 contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign, it would be refreshing. I guarantee there are still a large percentage of Americans who are unaware of this.

And, personally, I probably wouldn’t ask Barr or Rosenstein to testify. They’re clever little sophists -masterful at parsing questions -from whom you’re unlikely to get any good information, and would probably only serve to confuse the American public. While they truly have a lot to answer for, I’d keep the focus on Trump and his misdeeds. I would get at least a few of those thousand prosecutors who disagree with Trump/Barr.

urk · May 31, 2019, 7:43pm

I’d like to see it much, much, sooner, but yes. I’m mostly in the “impeach now!” boat, but as long as that boat is anchored, then I’m in the “aggressively build support/publicly make the case for impeachment” boat. Its actually the only way to help bring the anchor up on the “impeach now!” boat. I just hope we can muscle it up even sooner.

Also, yeah, the “Trump wants to be impeached” boat isn’t seaworthy.

khyber900 · May 31, 2019, 7:46pm

Herein lie the contradictions of Pelosi’s approach. Nadler is doing his best to sell it, but you can tell he doesn’t believe it will work without a change of course that includes investing some political capital in a formal impeachment inquiry. Nadler’s true views are reflected by Congressman Mike Quigley. He thinks the obstruction by Trump necessitates a formal impeachment inquiry. Dems have nothing to lose by doing it, he says. The implication there is that the current approach isn’t working.

Pelosi could actually convince most folks that impeachment wasn’t necessary, but to do that she’d have to go aggressively with hearings, subpoenas, contempt resolutions, and then use those hearings to make multiple criminal referrals. She could then tell the people, ‘we don’t need to impeach, b/c we’ve got something better than that. If you vote Dem based on everything you now know, I promise that we’ll be indicting these folks and get real justice.’ That type of reasoning could persuade a lot of folks.

But everything Pelosi has done to date has been slow walking, almost welcoming the delays created by Trump’s obstruction, because it would appear her true position is somewhere between 1. case closed and 2. self-impeachment (the latter I take to mean a resignation).

Now she’s in a position where Dems look like a do nothing Congress on the matter of accountability but she won’t do the one thing that could get things on track: launch a formal impeachment inquiry and swing the legal and political leverage to Dems.

spaceranger · May 31, 2019, 7:47pm

I can see where trumpkins would think this triumvirate of brain power and stability would put a dent in Mueller’s findings.
Ah, well, if that’s the case then please proceed. dumbasses.

urk · May 31, 2019, 7:48pm

A huge part of the value of having Mueller testify is simply that people don’t f***ing read. I’m sure that any number of Congressional Republicans are purposefully not reading it in order to keep doing what they’re doing. They should have to take a multiple choice reading comprehension test over it. And if they aren’t reading it, then a huge number of regular people aren’t reading it. So what they get of the actual information there is fragmentary and often skewed.

rhs1963 · May 31, 2019, 7:49pm

Combat veteran Ghouli thinks Mueller is afraid? Here’s the news, Ghouli: guys who were in the VN jungle after dark when the other side was using real bullets aren’t afraid of much. It’s your guy who has full pantloads.

losamigos · May 31, 2019, 7:49pm

I have been beating this drum for a while. Mueller must testify, for it is the proper thing to do after submitting a report (be it criminality, academia, industry, etc.) to answer questions and defend your results.

But it is true, nobody reads anymore. Fox News even changed their viewpoint after Mueller’s 8 min statement, even though he said nothing new- it was already in the report. The power of TV.

tsp · May 31, 2019, 7:50pm

Actually, it’s weird in here quite often.

prometheus59650 · May 31, 2019, 7:53pm

Mueller needs to man up and stop being a dainty, pussy-footing wallflower. He’s got one more job to do for the integrity of his work, the people on his team, and for his country.

If he didn’t want to get involved in political theater he shouldn’t have agreed to conduct an investigation into the greatest political crime in history.

Or is he an idiot that didn’t think it was going to be political theater, or that he could just give Mr. Barr his book report in time to go home and play some Fortnite before his buzzkill of a mom made him clean his room?

“Everything’s in the report.”

Yes…for the 3% that read it.

Him standing up and essentially reading one of his summaries for 9 minutes was a watershed event in this.

Service to his country DEMANDS that he park his ass in a public hearing to explain the report to the people that will never read it.

That said, I have no problem with Barr testifyiing first, as I wanna see how many more lies under oath he racks up.