Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New: Nadler may have to use subpoena to compel Mueller testimony. (Original Post) triron May 2019 OP
If only there was some sort of formalized inquiry that would make these requests stronger manor321 May 2019 #1
Barr won't let Mueller Iliyah May 2019 #2
The other night Nadler told Rachel Maddow BigmanPigman May 2019 #3
The half truths in this article are disturbing angrychair May 2019 #4

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
2. Barr won't let Mueller
Fri May 10, 2019, 02:06 PM
May 2019

testify. Nadler is following the correct procedure with continued talks with the DOJ. After talks have been exhausted, subpoena would be the next step.

There is a process that the House need to do first because all of this obstruction will eventually wind up in court or in the alternative . . impeachment proceedings.

I prefer to Nadler's tweet not the Hill.

BigmanPigman

(51,582 posts)
3. The other night Nadler told Rachel Maddow
Fri May 10, 2019, 02:23 PM
May 2019

that Mueller and he were working on a May15th meeting and that being employed at the DOJ doesn't matter regarding Mueller's ability to testify. So what's the problem? Why isn't Mueller willing to do this? Why force Nadler to issue a subpoena and waste more time?

angrychair

(8,686 posts)
4. The half truths in this article are disturbing
Fri May 10, 2019, 03:00 PM
May 2019
Mueller ultimately did not find evidence to charge members of Trump’s campaign


That's because he didn't actually look. Based on the evidence in the report with respect to the trump tower Moscow and the trump tower meeting in NY, there is no evidence to support an actual investigation into the specifics of that deal, no counter-intelligence or that witnesses were cooperating enough to determine what actually happened, one way or the other.

It's why Mueller said this on pg 2 Volume I:
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.


Or this pg.12, Vol I:
n the course of conducting that investigation, the Office periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the Special Counsel's authority established by the Acting Attorney General


Or the best quote in the whole thing, pg.76, Vol I:

the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.


Its not as straightforward as some make it out to be.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New: Nadler may have to u...