If you think impeachment isn't a political act, why does Mueller need to testify in public?

[StarfishSaver]

Congress doesn't need Mueller's testimony to proceed with impeachment - all of the evidence they need with respect to his report is contained in the report. But many people feel strongly that he should testify in public anyway in order for the American people to see and hear him.

This makes sense if the goal is to educate the public and build public support. But if impeachment is a purely non-political act that should be pursued immediately regardless whether the public is fully behind it, why should it be necessary for Mueller to testify?

I'm not arguing that Mueller shouldn't testify in public. Just wondering how that reconciles with the view that impeachment isn't, at least in part, a political act, and therefore, public support shouldn't be a factor.

[lark]

1. impeachment is totally political as it has to be initiated by a legislator who represents a party.

The Reps have to be convinced that "high crimes and misdemeanors" were done and having Mueller discuss those in public would be eye opening and i think very convincing. Repugs haven't read the report, they don't care what it says, and I bet most Dems haven't read it either - it's HUGE. Repugs, including Mueller, don't want this done because it will be totally embarassing for the president and his entire party - which is all the more reason it is IMPERATIVE that this happens. Subpoena Mueller and let Harris, Warren, Booker, Sanders, Kobuchar grill him to get the pertinent information out to the public and they can push their reps to do the right thing and impeach this shitstain on America.

[emmaverybo]

4. Grill? Let the Trump party grill. Dems should not treat Mueller as a hostile witness.

[uponit7771]

10. After he tells congress to pound sand?! what other choice do we have?!

[emmaverybo]

15. First, to let him testify behind closed doors, and if he still won't answer questions

about the report, subpoena and get him under oath. Those who know him say he would do so if subpoenaed. I don’t see that he must or should or has a duty to testify in public. The House can bring out crucial elements of the report through many other witnesses.
In any case, intelligence hearing must be held closed.

[uponit7771]

17. That's what I'm hearing, if he's subpoena'd he'd come. We'll see, I'm not cool with I'm not going

... to testify but if its in private and he has to come then so be it.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. Mueller needs to testify as to the origins of his investigation, something he stated

he would not do. He needs to be subpoenaed, put under oath and testify in public.

I am assuming that since he actually did an investigation that he found that was a reasonable basis to do so and that no one's civil rights were violated in the process.

He needs to say that in public because of the bullshit narrative Trump is floating about illegal investigations, witch hunts, spying, treason blah, blah, blah.

The House is just letting that narrative go on and on unchallenged.

[StarfishSaver]

3. I understand your point, but that wasn't my question

I didn't ask whether or why he should testify in public. My question was, if you think impeachment isn't a political process but something Congress should do because it's the right thing, regardless whether it's popular with the public, why it's necessary for the public to hear his testimony.

[emmaverybo]

6. Good question. The House has the document and can refer to it in proceedings with any

number of witnesses. Also have an entire team who worked on the report.

[Merlot]

5. Public support should defiantly be a factor.

Politicians exist to carry out the people's business. The public's education of the issues and support for impeachment are what matter most.

[uponit7771]

11. +1, KGOP's willingness to distort and lie are made harder with public appearance

[GeorgeGist]

7. Say what?

How can I judge the validity of your claim that all the evidence is contained in a redacted report.

[StarfishSaver]

8. That's beside my point.

My point is that many of the same people who claim that impeachment isn't a political process and Congress' decision to move forward should be affected by whether the public supports it or not are also demanding that Mueller testify in public because seeing him testify live can build public support for impeachment.

I'm simply asking how they rationalize what seem to be two conflicting arguments.

[uponit7771]

9. Fast/best way to socialize his words with lowest ability to distort seeing it will be on vid & can

... be chopped with transcripts.

Public needs to know details of the investigation WITHOUT KGOP DISTORTIONS.

Public deserves it seeing anything behind closed doors the KGOP will distort easier when its in transcripts.

For instance, after 3 hours of FAUX News yesterday it was damn near impossible for them to distort the fact that Barr lied to congress and the public about Mueller's motivation for not prosecuting etc.

Damn near impossible, it was on video and people heard his words

all of the evidence they need with respect to his report is contained in the report.

There are hundreds of questions related to the report that are not answered in the report and have not been made public

[StarfishSaver]

12. That's not what I'm asking

I'm not asking why the public needs to hear from Mueller. I'm asking why, if impeachment isn't a political process that needs public support, why does it matter if Mueller testifies publicly?

[uponit7771]

13. Impeachment process needs a critical mass historically, we're past that already. The rest is ...

... inforcement to the public of reasons to impeach

[StarfishSaver]

14. There isn't a critical mass yet

But we're getting there.

But that still doesn't answer my question.

[uponit7771]

19. In that case it's the same reason we have public trials.

The public trials are not political acts but they're open to the public to see for transperency, learning, etc

[emmaverybo]

21. They are not all televised. That was a problem in the OJ case. Supreme Court cases never

televised.

[pnwmom]

16. Because most people don't read 450 page reports but they do watch TV. (Whether or not

impeachment is a political act.)

But I don't think his entire testimony needs to be in public.

[Celerity]

18. Katie Hill, another freshman moderate from CA said the same thing, she said maybe 1%, 2% of voters

have read the report, but get Mueller to simply go over it on national television, not push him to go further, just explain it carefully, and the number of voters who see the crimes Rump committed will explode.

Very simple, and massively effective.

[StarfishSaver]

20. If it's not a political act, why does it matter if people see him testify?

If it's not a political act and it should only be up to Congress to impeach or not impeach based on whether they think Trump engaged in impeachable conduct, regardless whether the general public supports impeachment, why should it make any difference whether Mueller answers their questions in public or private? Why does the public need to see him testify at all if their views don't have any role in the outcome?

[pnwmom]

22. I'm agnostic on the question of whether it's political, but, in general

it's hard to see how any act Congress could ever take wouldn't be at least somewhat political because they have to be re-elected every two years, unlike someone who has received a lifetime appointment on a Court.