What legal standing does Barr have to NOT release Mueller's report to Congress?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What are the Dems going to do if he doesn't release it ?

Make mean tweets ?

Likely subpoena it, and likely also petition a judge to order its release, along with the grand jury testimony and evidence.

 

[Faun]

What are the Dems going to do if he doesn't release it ?

Make mean tweets ?

No, start their own investigations.

 

[kyzr]

The Law says what the Law says, and Barr is following it to the letter, full stop. /thread

He is, but that is not the end. Barr can join congress in asking a judge to release the grand jury information, and he has been invited to do so.

Post #394 had a few more redactions to consider:
"They are under obligation to redact, if Grand Jury information is in there and also those in the report that were not indicted, are supposed to have their privacy and rights protected."

So not just Grand Jury info, but those not indicted need to have their privacy rights respected. Also, we need to protect classified info. So there are many potential redactions that are needed. Any judge should follow the Law as written, which means full redactions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Law says what the Law says, and Barr is following it to the letter, full stop. /thread

He is, but that is not the end. Barr can join congress in asking a judge to release the grand jury information, and he has been invited to do so.

Post #394 had a few more redactions to consider:
"They are under obligation to redact, if Grand Jury information is in there and also those in the report that were not indicted, are supposed to have their privacy and rights protected."

So not just Grand Jury info, but those not indicted need to have their privacy rights respected. Also, we need to protect classified info. So there are many potential redactions that are needed. Any judge should follow the Law as written, which means full redactions.

A judge may order any or all protected grand jury information to be released to congress. As we saw with both the Clinton and Nixon investigations.

 

[dudmuck]

What makes you think they'll get an un-redacted report?

Faith in our democracy requires that elected officials other than republicans have access to the unredacted report. Full stop.

Not true, as you well know. Documents are redacted for a reason. That is so obvious that even you understand.

all of congress takes an oath of secrecy. But committee with oversight of intelligence agencies take an additional oath commensurate with their unique access to classified info.
They're all expected to handle classified info as such, which means no justification of keeping report away from congress. Specially considering how many times Trump himself endangered national security.

 

[Markle]

If conservatives were smart they would want that report released asap.

The last thing they would want is for that report to come out during an election cycle. Yet that's what they're causing to happen.

If that report "totally exhonoates" trump then trump and his people would want it all out in the public without any redactions. They don't want that so I have to believe there's something in that report that barr knows will harm trump.

Which conservatives, please be specific, have said they do not want the report released?

Sure, I would LOVE for it to not come out until, oh say, October 2020. That's not going to happen but I can wish.

As a staunch Conservative, I do NOT want it released without redactions. If there are people mentioned whose name should not be disclosed, I want it redacted. There are many legitimate reasons for items to be redacted. Releasing the un-redacted version to Congress would be the same releasing it to the public.

Since we have not seen the report, how do we know there is something in the report that will harm President Trump?

Regardless of what the report says, Progressives will SAY that it says President Trump is conspiring with the Russians to take over America and make him President for Life. Well, probably Vice President for Life since, Progressives will say Putin will be the President.

Overall, this is a totally worthless thread until after the REDACTED report is released.

Sit tight Progressives, your worst nightmares will come to life soon.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which conservatives, please be specific, have said they do not want the report released?

Well, the leader of the republican party in the senate blocked a vote on a measure asking for its release. Does that count?

 

[OODA_Loop]

What are the Dems going to do if he doesn't release it ?

Make mean tweets ?

Likely subpoena it, and likely also petition a judge to order its release, along with the grand jury testimony and evidence.

On the grounds of what exactly ? Mueller Report and Barr response comply with CFR governing the same.

 

[nat4900]

[QUOTE="Papageorgio, post: 22121989, member: 23516"]They are under obligation to redact, if Grand Jury information is in there[/QUOTE]

.Want to see some Grand Jury testimony??? .....................VOILA'

Bill Clinton testifies before grand jury, Aug. 17, 1998 - POLITICO

Grand Jury Testimony - Washington Post

Appeals court orders grand jury testimony unsealed

[URL='https://www.ajc.com/news/ellis-grand-jury-testimony-revealed/6EOQqEvm0sgfHqer5NioNP/']Ellis grand jury testimony revealed - AJC.com[/URL]

 

[Markle]

all of congress takes an oath of secrecy. But committee with oversight of intelligence agencies take an additional oath commensurate with their unique access to classified info.
They're all expected to handle classified info as such, which means no justification of keeping report away from congress. Specially considering how many times Trump himself endangered national security.

Who can make these things up!

dudmuck now wants us to believe that ALL CONGRESS take an oath of secrecy. PLUS, certain committees take a DOUBLE SECRET OATH OF SECRECY!

No question about it, the movie "Animal House" is dudmuck's very favorite movie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Else, your claim holds no water,

To you...

No. Period.
You make a claim, onus is on you to support it.
You refuse to do so because you know you cannot.

 

[Papageorgio]

[QUOTE="Papageorgio, post: 22121989, member: 23516"]They are under obligation to redact, if Grand Jury information is in there

.Want to see some Grand Jury testimony??? .....................VOILA'

Bill Clinton testifies before grand jury, Aug. 17, 1998 - POLITICO

Grand Jury Testimony - Washington Post

Appeals court orders grand jury testimony unsealed

Ellis grand jury testimony revealed - AJC.com
[/QUOTE]

So courts order Grand Jury testimony unsealed. We could do that however I think it would go faster if we just are patient for a few weeks and see what happens, we waited how long for the report, a few weeks really doesn't matter.

 

[nat4900]

So courts order Grand Jury testimony unsealed. We could do that however I think it would go faster if we just are patient for a few weeks and see what happens, we waited how long for the report, a few weeks really doesn't matter.

I actually AGREE..................So, please tell you right wing friends that their little "victory lap" (including the one that the orange clown has taken) may be a bit PREMATURE.

 

[dudmuck]

all of congress takes an oath of secrecy. But committee with oversight of intelligence agencies take an additional oath commensurate with their unique access to classified info.
They're all expected to handle classified info as such, which means no justification of keeping report away from congress. Specially considering how many times Trump himself endangered national security.

Who can make these things up!

dudmuck now wants us to believe that ALL CONGRESS take an oath of secrecy. PLUS, certain committees take a DOUBLE SECRET OATH OF SECRECY!

No question about it, the movie "Animal House" is dudmuck's very favorite movie.

The Constitution gives "sole Power of Impeachment" to the House, and the House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachments. They must receive the full report, which is in part an investigation into potential wrongdoings by the president, in order to be able to do their job.

 

[nat4900]

What I think is more than fair, is the releasing of Mueller's OWN "executive summary" since Mueller is smart enough in that summary to have redacted grand jury and classified info and methods.......

THAT is what can and should be released TODAY

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What does "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime," mean to you

It could mean many things. It could mean, for instance, that his actions would have been a crime, had anyone else committed them.

If the President cannot commit the crime of obstruction, there was absolutely no reason to investigate him for obstruction.
Grasp for another straw.

Derp....the president can indeed commit obstruction or any other crime. He cannot be indicted for obstruction or any other crime under current DOJ policy.

The impeachment proceedings of both Nixon and Clinton were over obstruction. Get it yet?

 

[nat4900]

The Constitution gives "sole Power of Impeachment" to the House, and the House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachments. They must receive the full report, which is in part an investigation into potential wrongdoings by the president, in order to be able to do their job.

Agreed.........

The MOST revealing sentence in Barr's SUBJECTIVE summary is the fact (which even Barr could not bury) that Trump was NOT exonerated of obstruction........we all well know that "collusion" is not in itself a crime....sure its slimy, unethical and even unpatriotic....so it is not a crime........

But, Mueller basically handed over to CONGRESS (not just the DOJ) an important step toward reviewing the investigation and if indeed obstruction of justice is validated by the congressional committee, then impeachment....which is really an open trial......is warranted.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If the President cannot commit the crime of obstruction, there was absolutely no reason to investigate him for obstruction.

The president can commit the crime of obstruction. And every case is different. And mueller was not tasked only with investigating crimes.

Loook at you, trying to have it both ways.
So cute.

Youre not following very well. While the president can commit the crime of obstruction, it may be that, in this case, his special protection under the constitution to run the executive branch may have led mueller to believe it was not a viable charge.

You're still talking out both sides of your mouth - trying to, anyway.

You're still talking out both sides of your mouth - trying to, anyway.

Damn, dude. I had high hopes for you. My bad.

Text of Sirica Order and Opinion in Decision That Watergate Data Go to House

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On the grounds of what exactly ?

The national interest.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...

Barr quoted two sentences from a nearly 400 page report.

Uh huh. So you figure Mueller went on and on about what a criminal Trump is, and then included two sentences stating that he was cleared for Barr to "cherrypick" out? Is that what you're telling yourself happened to avoid admitting that you've wasted 2 years and tons of money?

And that's leaving alone the fact that Barr's summary included far more than two sentences, and the fact that there's no way Mueller would remain silent if Barr were lying about his report.

It quoted two sentences from the report of nearly 400 pages.

That is indeed cherrypicking. What is your definition?

I never said he was lying, liar.

Well that's what summaries are......

the definition of summary

un, plural sum·ma·ries.
a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.
adjective
brief and comprehensive; concise.
direct and prompt; unceremoniously fast: to treat someone with summary dispatch.
(of legal proceedings, jurisdiction, etc.) conducted without, or exempt from, the various steps and delays of a formal trial.

Goddamn, dude.

Two sentences out of 400 pages can in no way be considered "comprehensive" as your definition requires.

You just proved why it is not a summary.

You apparently don't know what a summary is. It was a 4 page summary.......I've seen those before.......maybe if you dealt with documents and no flipping burgers you'd know it as well.

LOL.....
I do. Do you? After all you just posted the definition, dope.