Discussion: Steny Hoyer Says Dems Should Subpoena Mueller For Testimony

1 Like

Long past due
We thought he would stand up for democracy
He Didn’t
No balls at all
No left one no right one not even a slight one


“While Mueller hasn’t explicitly refused to testify in front of Congress, he did state last week that any testimony that he’d give wouldn’t provide any additional information on his investigation than what he already detailed in his report.”

And that alone – on primetime television – will be invaluable to moving public opinion in post-literate America.


That might be what he’s waiting for?


King Trump will just decree he isn’t showing up. He already has Pelosi and Nadler in chains in The Tower. The castle moat is loaded with barrgators. Unleash the kraken on all these surly, ungrateful knaves!!!

1 Like

Post Literate indeed
Maybe we can commission a graphic novel interpretation , or have it acted out like Game of thrones
It’s at least as complicated


That’s the sound of ONE of Nancy’s shoes dropping.

IMO Speaker P is just waiting to see the retina in their eyes ( the $$$-Ruskie Mod connection thing; Deutsche bank suspicious Money report, stinky tax return (Hello, New York)) before shoe # TWO drops.

(This was ALL so foreseeable when the fat crook glided down that escalator into infamy. How many Mueller types around the world thought bubble-ed: “Hey That fat crook can’t run for President. He’s a CROOK and I have the evidence in files back at the office”? And how was this fact going to come out: Who will tell the people?. But nonetheless, ALL so foreseeable.)


Perhaps if we were to surrender just one more time he’ll be satisfied?


Having Hoyer say this probably communicates better to the GOP side of the aisle what’s going on as he is the #2 and is on the more conservative side of the caucus and was the first one who kinda put his foot in his mouth with a ‘case closed’ like remark after the redacted Mueller Report came out. (Incidentally, I saw Hoyer in passing a few months ago as he popped into an event to make a few remarks. Solid Dem. Decent guy. Tried to say hello but he had to jet for other events)

I continue to maintain that Schiff/Nadler and Weissman should get Pelosi and Mueller in a meeting to hash things out.


What if Mueller were to appear before Congress, and he were asked a question along the lines of “Did Attorney General Barr or Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein interfere with your investigation in any way, such as pressuring you to end it prematurely?” Is the answer to this question already in Mueller’s report? I haven’t read the entire report, but, somehow, I doubt that the answer to this question is in there.


Reasonable people can disagree when interpreting rules. I’m prepared to grant that Mueller sincerely did the most he could within the constraints as he understood them.

However, refusing to subpoena him is to grant him the power to dictate what is the correct interpretation of the laws.

I have a hunch that Mueller tried to say the most-damning things possible in the report without crossing any lines he felt mustn’t be crossed, and that his insistence that the report “speak for itself” is based on his belief that the linguistic needle was so hard to thread in print that he won’t be able to walk the same line when speaking extemporaneously. He knows Dems want to push him off that balance-beam in one direction, Repubs the other, and he thinks the substance will not survive once it’s pushed out of the narrow lane that shields it from constitutional jeopardy.

EDIT: and, to my first point, “you come at the king, you best not miss” is a recipe for failure. Refusing to swing at any pitch that looks less-than-perfect is how you strike out.


I gotta say, I read Josh’s editorial and I don’t quite understand it. We shouldn’t impeach b/c it’s a waste of time but we need to show aggressiveness. Dems aren’t being aggressive but the House doesn’t have the power the people want or think it has. I can’t say that I agree with much that he wrote. It rings a bit circular to me in that I feel these are independent well developed thoughts but there’s no clear notion from Josh as to how they are reconciled.

At 41% nationwide before a single hearing is conducted, impeachment is at a higher baseline of popularity than the Nixon/Clinton situations. I know of no other way to expose Trump’s criminality than through the power of the impeachment hearings process. You raise the alarm by leaning in to impeachment with a special committee so that you free up your other committees to lean in on the other important investigations. The action on all sides will trigger more public attention whether it’s child separation, ACA sabotage or the obstruction of justice of the most important investigation in US history in terms of national security impact. That’s how you bring accountability and shine a light on things. That’s how you put Trump and the GOP on the defensive.


1 Like

There is no rule that you can only impeach once. The House can do impeachment on a conveyer belt. As Swalwell says, start with Barr.


Nonetheless, Josh stands behind it “more strongly than you can imagine.”


It would be mighty nice for the sake of appearances alone if the Democrats could avoid the ongoing string of stories about what they could, should, or would do. Decisive action generates much more useful excitement than does another piece about process, motivation, and potential action.


I’m sorry, but what was that? I was busy looking at the pictures…


Mueller has repeatedly telegraphed he won’t voluntarily show up so a subpoena is required. Instead of venting about it for weeks, just do it.


“The Judiciary Committee, I know, is talking to Mr. Mueller and hopefully they’ll reach an agreement,

“Hopefully.” What a joke. Issue a damn subpoena.

Slow-walking Jerry is slow-talking, too:

March 23: Mueller Report Issued
May 5: Mueller set to testify before Congress on May 15
May 10: Nadler says Mueller will not appear on May 15
May 17: Nadler delays Muller testimony until June
May 23: Nadler says Muller wants to testify “privately”
May 28: Mueller resigns
May 31: Nadler said that he still wants Mueller to testify
June 4: Hoyer reports Nadler is talking to Mueller


I keep reading that invoking impeachment will enhance or even clinch the House’s power to force testimony and document production. Yet that seems to lean on the assumption the courts will enforce House subpoenas. And I read elsewhere impeachment is inherently a legislative function and perogative, with the Judicial branch predisposed against imposing or inserting itself in the proceedings. Is it safe to assume a mere impeachment filing lands the courts on the side of the House in resulting disputes, just because they’re pursuing a Constitutional function? What’s to say they don’t go along with Trump’s “Eff you” to House requests? That is if they deign to rule at all?

Is impeachment the magic bullet that will slay Trump’s blanket decree of noncooperation with the House, or not?