dagblog - Comments for "Nadler v. Mueller"

I understand the motivation.

moat — Sat, 25 May 2019 01:09:59 +0000

In reply to I am guessing the point of

I understand the motivation.

The mastering of the news cycle is done. Camps are situated far away from other camps.

If I were in charge, I would chart it all in terms of the shortest paths of litigation.

I am guessing the point of

artappraiser — Sat, 25 May 2019 00:48:13 +0000

In reply to I think the committee should

I am guessing the point of wanting a show is to counter Trump's spin that everything's hunky dory, get buzz going among constituents that haven't read on it, and they would then pressure their mostly GOP Senators to impeach? Or offer them cover, as the case might be.

I think the committee should

moat — Sat, 25 May 2019 00:06:57 +0000

In reply to Nadler v. Mueller

I think the committee should take up the offer for Mueller to testify privately.

Time's a wasting. Waiting for a show is not as important as people who can investigate push DOJ to unredact after getting more clues.

Meanwhile, for those who

artappraiser — Fri, 24 May 2019 04:06:08 +0000

In reply to Nadler v. Mueller

Meanwhile, for those who might have missed this, Rep. Amash doubled down Thursday on the Mueller report implicating the president, in a thread of at least 20 tweets including this one:

Mueller’s report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interests at risk.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 23, 2019

Nadler confirms our reporting

artappraiser — Fri, 24 May 2019 03:59:56 +0000

In reply to Nadler v. Mueller

Nadler confirms our reporting from earlier this week. https://t.co/dQq24ZtF3O He has since rejected no fewer than half a dozen attempts in the halls to discuss this with him since then. https://t.co/pD2Gjjwi2Z
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 24, 2019