Nadler just said on Rachel's show that Mueller wants to testify mostly in private,

[pnwmom]

because he doesn't want to be part of a political spectacle.

HOWEVER, Nadler seemed to indicate that if that happened, there would be a TRANSCRIPT made public.

I wonder if there could be an advantage to that, with the R's less likely to even turn up, once they knew they couldn't use their five minutes for grandstanding.

[Zoonart]

1. It would take away the opportunity for the

Thugs to grand stand and twist his testimony and impune his motives.

[Corgigal]

2. Our time, our dime

should be done in the light.

[StarfishSaver]

14. We pay for the federal courts but their proceedings aren't televised

We just get transcripts.

And that's all appellate courts get when considering appeals - because all they need are the facts.

[LenaBaby61]

3. Or ....

thuglicans can say that Mueller's hiding something, and ashamed to show his face in public. You KNOW that some thuglicans and especially Fatso-in-chief will say that the transcripts are FAKE that are released to the public, because you can't trust Democrats.

Not a good reason for Mueller to want to testify behind closed doors IMHO.

This country is fighting for it's LIFE and Mueller's worried about his testimony turning into a political spectacle

[madaboutharry]

4. I don't know what to think of this.

[C_U_L8R]

5. Patriots testify in public

Just saying, Robert

[StarfishSaver]

15. Public testimony is not an indicia of patriotism

[empedocles]

6. The Watergate Investigators had the advantage of getting information in extensive, closed

sessions, with less of the partisan bickerings/obstacles that a public proceeding entailed. [[Note the several Watergate timelines to verify how long the closed sessions lasted, making bipartisan headway more possible].

[panader0]

7. All of the labyrinthian twists and turns in the law drive me nuts.

There is right and wrong. Anyone with half a brain can see it.

[W_HAMILTON]

8. No. Fuck that. Testify in public for us all to see.

[people]

9. Muller testifying in private?

Those of us who saw the Watergate hearings (and that includes Barr and Trump who probably saw them) know how compelling live testimony is. A transcript of his testimony will not have any weight with the general public and is a way to bury its impact. Does Nadler have to agree to this? Why should Nadler accept this condition?

[Blue_true]

16. As someone pointed out. If you study history, most of the

groundwork that brought about breakthroughs in the Watergate situation took place in private sessions.

[StarfishSaver]

17. Many Watergate hearings - and almost all of the impeachment hearings - were conducted in private

[StarfishSaver]

20. Most of the testimony in the Watergate hearings was done in private.

And the people who testified in public whom you remember as compelling were fact witnesses were offering direct testimony about their involvement in activities related to Watergate. They weren't investigators sharing information with the committees. Any such investigatory information was shared with the Senate off-camera in private sessions.

And the Impeachment hearings weren't televised. No witness testified in those hearings in public.

[Andy823]

10. That works for me

and I agree that if the republicans can't try and make a "joke" out of the hearing by being jerks, there will probably be less of them show up.

[Takket]

11. testifying in private only makes the "spectacle" worse

testify in public and allow the people to make up their own minds. don't leave it to the dog waggers to interpret for us.

and a transcript is insufficient. it won't convey body language, emotions behind words, etc.

[Blue_true]

12. I would allow Mueller to testify in private.

The key is to get accurate information.

If republicans don't show up, hold the hearings anyway, Speaker Pelosi could set that condition and call the republican tactics extrodinary measures that warranted suspension of some House rules.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Apparently people aren't really interested in information. They want a show

[StarfishSaver]

13. I think it could be better

Just the facts.

But people want a show, so they're throwing fits about it - which is very revealing.

[Blue_true]

19. Yeah, I am really disappointed by some of the posts that I have read.

People want a show, open hearings on sensitive issues, an impeachment show in Congress. They seem to be clueless about the setbacks all that can entail.

If Mueller comes testify in private and give up the goods on Trump, democrats will have actionable material for calling witnesses and putting them under oath. It was the private hearings that broke open Watergate, as one person wisely pointed out. Dean, Butterfield? When they testified in public, they had no choice but to tell the truth.