Plot Twist! Top Republican calls on Nadler to have Mueller testify

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Apr 9, 2019.

  1. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    Interesting. And I agree. Forget Barr. Bring on Mueller

    https://thehill.com/policy/national...n-nadler-to-have-mueller-testify-as-democrats

    The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee is urging the panel's Democratic chairman to have special counsel Robert Muellertestify about his findings from the 22-month investigation into Russian interference.

    Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) in a letter on Monday called on Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to seek Mueller's testimony, rather than going after Attorney General William Barr, arguing that this is the best path to obtaining transparency.

    "If you seek both transparency and for the American public to learn the full contours of the Special Counsel’s investigation, public testimony from Special Counsel Mueller himself is undoubtedly the best way to accomplish this goal," Collins wrote to Nadler.

    "To that end, Special Counsel Mueller should be invited to testify before the Committee during the week of April 22. Although the House is expected to be in recess that week, I think we can agree this business is too important to wait, and Members of the Committee will surely return to Washington at such a critical moment in our country’s history," Collins continued.
     
  2. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    Agreed on this. Mueller has to be called after the report is released.
     
  3. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #3
    It's funner to beat up on the POTUS's AG, Mueller isn't tied to the GOP or Trump so banging away at him won't score them nearly as many political points for 2020.
     
  4. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #4
    Don't think they will get anything useful as its just going to be a rehash of whats already in a long report.

    Shouldn't they wait till the reports released and actually read it before issuing subpoenas?!? Sort of like the cart before the horse thing. I know it's just a formality, but I'm a traditionalist.
     
  5. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    I think there's only one question of importance: "Do you agree with Mr. Barr's letter on the conclusions of your report?"
     
  6. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #7
    That is the one they won't like the answer on.:cool:
    Pre-report - won't like the answer and will make stuff up or exaggerate.
    Post-report - won't like the answer and argue the redaction's.

    Anything else is after the OIG report. :eek:
     
  7. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #8
    Haven't seen it yet. Well the newest one out by Barr I think.
     
  8. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    I meant, question to Mueller not you.
    Unless... you're Mueller!!! :eek:
     
  9. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #10
    Shhhhh.....
     
  10. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #11
    Dude! You're old!!! :eek:
     
  11. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    Only if you believe that we should simply ignore every bit of damning evidence of the Trump campaign’s interactions with and cover-up of interactions with the Russians and ask only if their actions constituted a prosecutable federal crime. We hold presidents (or at least we used to hold presidents) to a far tougher standard of conduct than that.
     
  12. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    You can hold the president to whatever standard you want. You can ignore whatever you want. Again, political evaluations != legal evaluations. The Mueller Report is about legality; how you interpret what it contains for political reasons, it's up to you.
     
  13. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    No, it’s up to the members of Congress to ask Mueller what his team found, not just the bottom line legal conclusions.
     
  14. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    They can subpoena him, and they will as they should. Not sure what you're arguing then.
     
  15. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #16
    He, like many Dems, has an expectation of confirmation of their biased opinion that Trump is absolutely and totally guilty of whatever they decide is the crime of the moment and the report better confirm this or there will more investigations until someone somewhere finds what they know exists.
     
  16. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #17
    Unless it has the removal of Trump, he will never be satisfied.
     
  17. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #18
    You said that “I think there's only one question of importance: "Do you agree with Mr. Barr's letter on the conclusions of your report?"” I’m simply noting that there is far more than that that they can and should ask Mueller.
     
  18. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #19
    Redacted or Unredacted or ...
     
  19. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #20
    I'd argue that both Barr and Mueller's opinion or conclusions are irrelevant. As pointed out by Barr, DOJ policy prevents them from indicting the president. The House would determine whether or not to indict the president through the impeachment process. Any attempt to prevent Congress from accessing any evidence gathered by Mueller would, in my opinion, be straightforward obstruction by Barr and the DOJ.
     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    Please.
    The letter is clear: "“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” (quoting the report), "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities," and " “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference" (quote from the report).
    Furthermore,
    "Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

    So, not only there was no indictment, not only the evaluation did not take into account the possibility to indict the President, but there was no underlying crime.
     
  21. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #22
    Unfortunately, you didn't respond to what I actually said, so I'm not sure what your point is here other that to repeat what Barr stated in his letter.
     
  22. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    There isn't much to respond to.
    I want to see Congress trying to impeach a President after a 2 year investigation found NO crime. Please do it before 2020, so that Trump can win with 90% of the votes.
     
  23. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #24
    Again, you're not responding to what I said. (And misstating the conclusions described in the letter.)

    To summarize, Congress is responsible for deciding to indict the president, not the DOJ. Thus they are entitled to the evidence gathered in this investigation in order to draw their own conclusions. It's really not a controversial statement unless your bias or cynicism leads you to believe the only motivation for congressional oversight is political retribution.
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #25
    Never said it's controversial. They can try to indict him because he drank water instead of orange juice. OF course they can. Let's see how it flies.
     

Share This Page

235 April 9, 2019