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

[nat4900]

Though we may need to wash after reading your shit.

Washing yourself is probably a good idea anyway.......Get that orange tinge off your lips....LOL

 

[nat4900]

With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)

So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?

WOW....I got (so far) NINE smiley faces on my O/P.......
Naaaaw, this forum is not overly-populated by Trump cult members.....LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Being that Democrats in Congress wrote these statutes the way they are now.

100% Legal Standing.

He only has to release a summary.

that Democrats in Congress wrote these statutes the way they are now.

100% Legal Standing.

He only has to release a summary.[/QUOTE]


What statute?

Who says he only has to release a summary?

 

[nat4900]

Was NOT ALL opinion. The FACT that your peeps changed the rules because of Starr and Clinton is proven fact, and 100% accurate.

Good boy.........You're following the cult standard procedure........ALWAYS bring up one of the Clintons whenever you have to "defend" your [orangy] cult leader.......LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-07-09/pdf/99-17327.pdf
§ 600.9Notification and reports by theAttorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notifythe Chairman and Ranking MinorityMember of the Judiciary Committees ofeach House of Congress, with anexplanation for each action—
(1) Upon appointing a SpecialCounsel;
(2) Upon removing any SpecialCounsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the SpecialCounsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances(if any) in which the Attorney Generalconcluded that a proposed action by aSpecial Counsel was so inappropriate orunwarranted under establishedDepartmental practices that it shouldnot be pursued.

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may betolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative orprivacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of thesereports 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

That's a DOJ regulation. The AG sets the regulations, dope.

Barr is free to do what he wishes in this regard.

 

[nat4900]

Who says he only has to release a summary?

The WHO is none other than the orange buffoon himself.....After all, Barr auditioned and was hired precisely to protect the fat ass.

 

[nat4900]

So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-07-09/pdf/99-17327.pdf
§ 600.9Notification and reports by theAttorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notifythe Chairman and Ranking MinorityMember of the Judiciary Committees ofeach House of Congress, with anexplanation for each action—
(1) Upon appointing a SpecialCounsel;
(2) Upon removing any SpecialCounsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the SpecialCounsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances(if any) in which the Attorney Generalconcluded that a proposed action by aSpecial Counsel was so inappropriate orunwarranted under establishedDepartmental practices that it shouldnot be pursued.

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may betolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative orprivacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of thesereports 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

That's a DOJ regulation. The AG sets the regulations, dope.

Barr is free to do what he wishes in this regard.

The Mueller report will be released, AND Barr, Mueller and Rosenstein will all be called to testify (under oath) before one or two House committees.

 

[Oddball]

Barr is Mule's superior and can do what he wants with the report.

Really???.............The Trump stooge, Barr "can do what he wants with the report"???

Isn't that the way that Putin runs the Kremlin?

(what a Trump ass licking, moron.....LMAO)

Suck it, commie moonbat.

 

[imawhosure]

Was NOT ALL opinion. The FACT that your peeps changed the rules because of Starr and Clinton is proven fact, and 100% accurate.

Good boy.........You're following the cult standard procedure........ALWAYS bring up one of the Clintons whenever you have to "defend" your [orangy] cult leader.......LOL

Am I wrong, yes or no NAT?!?!?!?!?!

Did not YOUR SIDE change the rules-)

 

[nat4900]

Was NOT ALL opinion. The FACT that your peeps changed the rules because of Starr and Clinton is proven fact, and 100% accurate.

Good boy.........You're following the cult standard procedure........ALWAYS bring up one of the Clintons whenever you have to "defend" your [orangy] cult leader.......LOL

Am I wrong, yes or no NAT?!?!?!?!?!

Did not YOUR SIDE change the rules-)

We used to have an office of an INDEPENDENT counsel (meaning that such an investigation's findings, were directly turned over to Congress)......That law expired in 1999.

We now have an office of a SPECIAL counsel....consider Trump fortunate since such an office has to go through a Trump's appointee to divulge what such an office has found about him.

Either way, since the current House is NOT led by a bunch of Trump acolytes, the truth will come out either way.

This is ........at the very least.......a question of questionable Trump administration's ETHICS........and at worst....well, we can only hope.

I know that your side NO LONGER gives a crap about either ethics or morality.......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's a KEY provision regarding the regulations governing the Special Counsel's report

Yes. And is answers the question of "what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?"
You'll note this was pointed out in post #20
Dumbass.

 

[Papageorgio]

That actually makes sense because of the source, Nat's goal just seems to be putting out any negative propaganda, truth be damned.

Just so you and the other Trump cult members get up to speed (besides what Hannity tells you,) know this:

The best indication of timing on the release of the report, has come from an ANONYMOUS DOJ official, who said the report will be out in “weeks, not months..” Stooge Barr told Lindsay Graham that the report will be released to Congress in April.....without a clear date of when it would be released to the public.

Just so you know, you hater got to hate, and you have nothing to base your stupid bullshit on. Just because you have to hang on what MSNBC says to form your uneducated opinions, I don’t need to, nor do I watch or read Fox, looks like you are wrong again, nothing new.

 

[whitehall]

Two years and over 2,000 subpoenas and over 500 witnesses deposed and a scale of midnight gestapo raids and the crazy angry left isn't satisfied that the President was exonerated? Thank God the democrat party is all but reduced to a laughable entity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Two years and over 2,000 subpoenas and over 500 witnesses deposed and a scale of midnight gestapo raids and the crazy angry left isn't satisfied that the President was exonerated? Thank God the democrat party is all but reduced to a laughable entity.

Hopefully they keep up it thru 2020.

 

[nat4900]

[QUOTE="Papageorgio, post: 22097650, member: 23516"]I don’t need to, nor do I watch or read Fox.[/QUOTE]


So, you're a self-made moron???......lol

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you're a self-made moron???......lol

Says the guy who starts a topic by asking a question he doesn't think can be answered... and then answers it himself.

 

[Papageorgio]

[QUOTE="Papageorgio, post: 22097650, member: 23516"]I don’t need to, nor do I watch or read Fox.

So, you're a self-made moron???......lol[/QUOTE]

Wow, guy dumber than a moron calling someone else a moron, I’d say it’s ballsy if it wasn’t so funny!

 

[protectionist]

With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)

So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?

When it IS released, and is far smaller than its full 300+ pages, Democrats will complain that Barr is covering something up. Actually, the report is likely to be chock full of classified information, that CANNOT be released, so the full report CANNOT be released and never will be.

Democrats, who make a habit of making themselves look stupid, will ignore this reality, and blabber about a coverup. Never before have so few insulted the intelligence of so many.

 

[bripat9643]

With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)

So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?

The law doesn't require it, dumbass. It's as simple as that.

 

[SweetSue92]

Let's break this down.

In the imagination of Leftists, somewhere in this report are some kind of details hiding that they can gin up to feed their fevered dreams. Some meeting, some nonexistent trip to Prague, some email or whatever that will bring this Collusion Zombie back to life so that somehow, someway the 2016 election either didn't happen or was illegitimate or can be undone through impeachment.

Being completely divorced from reality is no obstacle for these people. If there is no narrative within the solar system they will scour the galaxy. This is what they are doing.

Give it no oxygen. Leave them to drift off. Maybe they'll happen upon a black hole.