Mueller Investigation pt5

[Bogative]

Republicans blocked request for an unredacted Report.
Barr is planing to release a redacted one.

Gotcha. Nobody blocked anything then.

But I do see the next step in the conspiracy theory evolution. When the redacted report does not prove collusion between Trump and the Russians, the nutty left can blame Barr and keep right on truckin' with their nuttiness.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Gotcha. Nobody blocked anything then.
But I do see the next step in the conspiracy theory evolution. When the redacted report does not prove collusion between Trump and the Russians, the nutty left can blame Barr and keep right on truckin' with their nuttiness.

incorrect.
you obviously didn't get it.


What Barr will release isn't what Congress Democrats ask for.
And yes, Barr has opened himself up for accusations of obfuscation. There is no good reason why members of Congress with sufficient security clearance can't see the entire report.

 

[Bogative]

incorrect.
you obviously didn't get it.

You are correct that I was incorrect. Allow me to correct myself. AG Barr blocked Democrats' request to violate DOJ rules implemented under the Clinton Administration and release the unredacted report.

What Barr will release isn't what Congress Democrats ask for.
And yes, Barr has opened himself up for accusations of obfuscation. There is no good reason why members of Congress with sufficient security clearance can't see the entire report.

The Atty. Gen. is not supposed to release any of the report according to DOJ regulations. You should be thanking him for releasing any of it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Atty. Gen. is not supposed to release any of the report according to DOJ regulations. You should be thanking him for releasing any of it.

no.
Barr has the obligation to inform Congress about the Report, and provide details if required. And Congress has subpoena power to ask anyone associated with the Report.
And, of course, previous Special Prosecutors have just published their report, with all salacious details.

Would you have thanked Loretta Lynch for releasing a redacted Starr report?

 

[Segnosaur]

You are correct that I was incorrect. Allow me to correct myself. AG Barr blocked Democrats' request...

While much of the authority does rest with Barr, at the very least McConnell could have supported calls to have the complete report released, in an attempt to show a desire for transparency. It would not have significant legal weight, but it would show at least some interest in seeing that the public is properly informed. Instead, he is attempting to run interference for Trump. (So now Trump and Barr can claim "See? Not everyone wants to see the report!")

That McConnell blocked a call to have the report released is rather indicative of the republican's lack of ethics.

You should be thanking him for releasing any of it.

Why?

The issue of Russian interference is a significant issue in the U.S. election. The people who were running the investigation were government employees paid by the taxpayer. That the president is probably compromised by people from a foreign country is important.

Releasing the report (in full) should not be seen as some act of generosity by Trump and his toadies; instead it should be seen as the proper ethical thing to do.

 

[Bogative]

no.

Yes.

Mr. Starr, the independent counsel leading the Clinton investigation, was operating under a now-defunct law that gave him the authority to send a report directly to Congress. The Republican-controlled Congress promptly made the whole thing public.

That experience helped persuade members of Congress of both parties that the independent counsel law should be permitted to lapse in 1999. But there was still a need for some kind of mechanism for prosecutors with a degree of independence to investigate potential high-level executive-branch wrongdoing.

Under then-Attorney General Janet Reno, the Clinton administration issued the special counsel regulation that governed Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Among other things, it called for the special counsel to write a “confidential” report for the attorney general, who would then relay his own report to Congress saying the investigation was over. In short, those rules did not envision a lengthy report from Mr. Mueller going to Congress and being published for the public to read — in any form.

Barr has the obligation to inform Congress about the Report, and provide details if required. And Congress has subpoena power to ask anyone associated with the Report.
And, of course, previous Special Prosecutors have just published their report, with all salacious details.

According to the New York Times, he is only required to inform Congress that the report is finished.

Ken Starr did not publish his report, it was given to Congress and they released it to the press. That is why the Clinton DOJ changed the rules preventing any special counsel report from being handed over to Congress.

Once again, the Republicans didn't block anything except for a really really bad game of political showmanship by the Democrats that was meant to fool the gullible. Unfortunately, it is "Mission Accomplished."

 

[Bogative]

That McConnell blocked a call to have the report released is rather indicative of the republican's lack of ethics.

Or, it could show they have at least a basic understanding of how special counsel rules and provisions are required to work and are not willing to entertain pointless political stunts from those who suffer from hysterical TDS.

Releasing the report (in full) should not be seen as some act of generosity by Trump and his toadies; instead it should be seen as the proper ethical thing to do.

Unless you are a person who had allegations made against you in front of the grand jury and did not no you were mentioned, much less have a chance to defend yourself against any of those allegations, to only later be cleared by the SO. How would that be considered ethical?

How would it be ethical to release a report that could expose ongoing criminal investigations by other prosecutors who were investigating Trump?

How would it be ethical to release a report that could compromise classified techniques that were used by intelligence agencies to prove Russia interfered with the 2016 election and that are possibly being used right now to prevent Russia from interfering in future elections?

It sounds exactly opposite of ethical to me.

 

[Cabbage]

Unless you are a person who had allegations made against you in front of the grand jury and did not no you were mentioned, much less have a chance to defend yourself against any of those allegations, to only later be cleared by the SO. How would that be considered ethical?

How would it be ethical to release a report that could expose ongoing criminal investigations by other prosecutors who were investigating Trump?

How would it be ethical to release a report that could compromise classified techniques that were used by intelligence agencies to prove Russia interfered with the 2016 election and that are possibly being used right now to prevent Russia from interfering in future elections?

It sounds exactly opposite of ethical to me.

I could understand your points with respect to releasing the unredacted report to the general public, sure, but to members of Congress with the required security clearance? Failure to even release the report to them, bolstered with the reports of Mueller's team being upset with Barr's "summary", smells exactly like a cover-up.

 

[plague311]

I could understand your points with respect to releasing the unredacted report to the general public, sure, but to members of Congress with the required security clearance? Failure to even release the report to them, bolstered with the reports of Mueller's team being upset with Barr's "summary", smells exactly like a cover-up.

Bogative still hasn't said **** about the fact that everyone in Trump's circle screamed for the report to be released because it exonerated him and everyone else.

That's what makes seeing people like Bog take such a firm stance. They have no idea what will come out of the Orange ******** mouth in the next 24 hours. Then it'll just be another game of mental hopscotch to try and feel they're making a valid point.

This all means nothing unless you cherry pick the latest ******** to come out of that rotund cheese wheel.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That it's standard for people to scam people doesn't make said scam not a scam.

It costs slightly more than a standard paperback.

That there are scams out there doesn't mean the common practice of a placeholders for books not yet published is one of them.

I don't understand the hostility here.

 

[Ziggurat]

That there are scams out there doesn't mean the common practice of a placeholders for books not yet published is one of them.

I don't understand the hostility here.

I think the hostility is paying for a non-copyrighted work, not the placeholder. But this is silly: printing isn't free. That's why you can't get hard copies of Shakespeare for free. If you want the report for free, you'll probably be able to get a free PDF version online, but some people want a nicely bound hard copy. It's not a scam to pay for that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the hostility is paying for a non-copyrighted work, not the placeholder. But this is silly: printing isn't free. That's why you can't get hard copies of Shakespeare for free. If you want the report for free, you'll probably be able to get a free PDF version online, but some people want a nicely bound hard copy. It's not a scam to pay for that.

I think it's an overreaction.

 

[Paul2]

Yes.






According to the New York Times, he is only required to inform Congress that the report is finished.

Ken Starr did not publish his report, it was given to Congress and they released it to the press. That is why the Clinton DOJ changed the rules preventing any special counsel report from being handed over to Congress.

Once again, the Republicans didn't block anything except for a really really bad game of political showmanship by the Democrats that was meant to fool the gullible. Unfortunately, it is "Mission Accomplished."

Having a DOJ rule that says the AG shall release certain information to Congress does not preclude Congress, under different authority (constitutional oversight), from legitimately requiring more information than the DOJ requires.

Is there a DOJ rule that says the AG *shall not* release the entire report to Congress? A link to that DOJ rule (or quoting some authority) be helpful.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think there's a lot of precedent to releasing congressional investigative reports to the public, going back at least to the Warren Report.

Worth remembering that congress is composed of folks sent there as our representatives, and are equal in status to the executive branch. And they are tasked with oversight of the executive.

Unless there is a VERY good reason, we the people are entitled to know what our government is doing.

 

[Bogative]

Is there a DOJ rule that says the AG *shall not* release the entire report to Congress? A link to that DOJ rule (or quoting some authority) be helpful.

Committee on the Judiciary

The regulations provide that the special counsel must submit a report to the Attorney General at the conclusion of the special counsel’s investigation explaining the special counsel’s prosecutorial decisions—including any decisions not to prosecute. Under the regulations, that report is strictly “confidential.” As the Clinton Justice Department explained when it proposed the regulations, the “report will be handled as a confidential document” just like “internal documents relating to any federal criminal investigation.” This confidentiality rule was designed to avoid the problems experienced under the old Independent Counsel statute, which—in contrast to today’s special counsel regulations—provided for the public release of independent counsel report.

According to DOJ rules, the AG can use his discretion to release the parts of the SC report that do not violate Federal laws. He is required only to provide a summary of the SC's report to the ranking members of the judiciary committee, the rest of it is considered confidential by DOJ rules.

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

The above is what Barr is doing now with the help of the Special Counsel's office. I may have to record the upcoming Senate hearing just to see if Barr dresses Schumer down for his stunt.

 

[Bogative]

Unless there is a VERY good reason, we the people are entitled to know what our government is doing.

With the exception of using taxpayer money to cover up the sexual peccadilloes of Congress members, in that case, we can go **** ourselves.

 

[smartcooky]

I may have to record the upcoming Senate hearing just to see if Barr dresses Schumer down for his stunt.

Barr has no standing to dress anyone in Congress down for anything. He is there to answer questions, under oath.

If he tries dressing anyone down, he WILL get the short shift and will put in his place in no uncertain terms.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With the exception of using taxpayer money to cover up the sexual peccadilloes of Congress members, in that case, we can go **** ourselves.

Let's see: Blow job in the oval office

Russian involvement in a federal election


One on those should concern anyone more than the other. Wonder which one?

 

[Paul2]

Committee on the Judiciary

According to DOJ rules, the AG can use his discretion to release the parts of the SC report that do not violate Federal laws. He is required only to provide a summary of the SC's report to the ranking members of the judiciary committee, the rest of it is considered confidential by DOJ rules.


The above is what Barr is doing now with the help of the Special Counsel's office. I may have to record the upcoming Senate hearing just to see if Barr dresses Schumer down for his stunt.

Confidential to who? Confidential from Congress? Confidential from the Intelligence or Oversight committee?

 

[Bogative]

Let's see: Blow job in the oval office

Russian involvement in a federal election


One on those should concern anyone more than the other. Wonder which one?

Easy now. I was referring to members of Congress and their secret hush fund paid for by the taxpayers. Unless some member of Congress has been sneaking into the White House to get a blow job that I'm not aware of…