• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peripheral third parties and the Mueller Report

The Great Zaganza

Maledictorian
The Great Zaganza
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
29,806
Bill Barr announced that he will redact
"Information that could hurt the reputation and privacy of peripheral third parties." ​




and my first question is: who, according to Barr (because he is the one gets to decide) could possibly fall under the heading of "peripheral third parry" ?
 
Fair warning - if anyone called "Trump" or "Kushner" is considered "peripheral" to the Report by Barr, the AG will have delivered the 2020 victory to the Dems.
 
Absolutely no one of consequence, just a string of covfefe boys from New York to Moscow.

I'm not kidding. Barr is going to selectively remove every potential cutout between Trump and Putin.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Bill Barr announced that he will redact
"Information that could hurt the reputation and privacy of peripheral third parties." ​




and my first question is: who, according to Barr (because he is the one gets to decide) could possibly fall under the heading of "peripheral third parry" ?
Click to expand...


Isn't the answer obvious?

The people who fall under that heading, according to Barr, is anyone El Presidente tells him to fall under that heading.
 
I'm sure Trump wants him to redact everything 'Trump' as peripheral.
But I doubt Barr will be that brazen.
 
"I doubt they'd really do that" followed by them really doing that has been the hallmark of the Trump administration. It's the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party in real life.
 
The kids have not been charged. No doubt in my mind that the main peripheral third parties are going to be anyone named Trump or Kushner, and his favorite little gal from Mar-a-Lago, Hope Hicks, and maybe Porter her boyfriend.

If the list is long enough it will undoubtedly include any reference to Trump Sr, like the whole letter for Don Jr about the adoption meeting.
 
Last edited:
Technically, Barr should only remove the names of innocent individuals who somehow got caught up in the story. So, like, Baron Trump would definitely be peripheral. Michael Cohen's receptionist would be peripheral. We'll have to see what Barr actually does, though. I'm certainly not going to predict it.
 
Loss Leader said:
Technically, Barr should only remove the names of innocent individuals who somehow got caught up in the story. So, like, Baron Trump would definitely be peripheral. Michael Cohen's receptionist would be peripheral. We'll have to see what Barr actually does, though. I'm certainly not going to predict it.
Click to expand...

There have been statements, (I can't remember by who or the exact words right now, will look them up if people are interested) to the effect that DOJ policy is not to make information public which may cast individuals in a negative light if they have decided not to pursue prosecution of those individuals.

My fear is that this policy would allow for redaction of details which are far from incidental.
 
Redacting for public consumption is one thing. But Barr has, as far as I understand, indicated that even the limited Congressional Committee entrusted with secret information will only get a redacted report (if he has anything to say about it.)
 
Loss Leader said:
Technically, Barr should only remove the names of innocent individuals who somehow got caught up in the story. So, like, Baron Trump would definitely be peripheral. Michael Cohen's receptionist would be peripheral. We'll have to see what Barr actually does, though. I'm certainly not going to predict it.
Click to expand...
I predict that Barr claiming there was no obstruction when Mueller said no such thing is an indicator Barr's going to be covering up for Trump.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I predict that Barr claiming there was no obstruction when Mueller said no such thing is an indicator Barr's going to be covering up for Trump.
Click to expand...


Except Barr didn't exactly say there was no obstruction. That's just the FOX spin. What he actually said was that the report did not contain enough information for a criminal indictment, but that it did not exonerate the President either. Barr's being very cagey, but he's not claiming Trump's hands are clean.
 
Loss Leader said:
Barr's being very cagey, but he's not claiming Trump's hands are clean.
Click to expand...

'A huge pile of currency, in rubles, found with orange stains on it in a luxury suite in a Trump hotel. Puddles of urine in the bedroom, Diet Coke on the floor. Fingerprints present but oddly tiny. What can it mean? Who could possibly be responsible? Investigators baffled.'
 
Problem is: Barr's "not-not" exoneration of Trump gives him (in his mind and in the mind of Republicans) cover to declared Trump and anyone else not yet indicted a "Peripheral Third Party".
 
Loss Leader said:
Except Barr didn't exactly say there was no obstruction. That's just the FOX spin. What he actually said was that the report did not contain enough information for a criminal indictment, but that it did not exonerate the President either. Barr's being very cagey, but he's not claiming Trump's hands are clean.
Click to expand...

Given Barr's legal theory of the sweeping, unadulterated power of the executive, his finding of no obstruction is pretty meaningless. Barr's view is that any use of executive power by the President is lawful, even if there are obvious corrupt intentions.

Even if one were to accept such a view, it is the legislature's constitutional role to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense. There is no go reason for the House to not receive an unredacted report immediately.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Problem is: Barr's "not-not" exoneration of Trump gives him (in his mind and in the mind of Republicans) cover to declared Trump and anyone else not yet indicted a "Peripheral Third Party".
Click to expand...


I doubt there's a way to redact the report in such a way as to obscure Trump's identity. We're going to have to just wait and see what he does.
 
Loss Leader said:
Except Barr didn't exactly say there was no obstruction. That's just the FOX spin. What he actually said was that the report did not contain enough information for a criminal indictment, but that it did not exonerate the President either. Barr's being very cagey, but he's not claiming Trump's hands are clean.
Click to expand...
Weasel words, IMO. How does it make it not a cover-up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom