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

[Faun]

All Republicans voted to release it.

False. Senate republicans blocked the vote.

Please show us.

Senate blocks resolution calling for public release of Robert Mueller's report after House voted 420-0

I guess Republicans don't want to win the Senate next year.

We know the socialists won't win the Senate, don't we?

Democrats can.

 

[hadit]

Can you imagine Spartacus and Schiff hearing a salacious secret? They'd kick over an old lady in a wheelchair if she was between them and a TV camera.

Ahem..........LOL


Watchdog group files ethics complaint against Nunes after report of ...

Devin Nunes: A Timeline of His White House Visits and Trump ... - Wired

Senate Intelligence Leaders Say House G.O.P. Leaked a Senator's ...

Look! Somebody else!

 

[hadit]

Ultimately, sure. But good reason to fight as long as possible and warn the American people, naming the potential sources of the leaks.

How far back are we talking? Strzok talked about the Dems' 'Leak Strategy', and McCabe was recommended for Indictment for his about a year ago - which nothing has been done about....

I'm talking about the Congresscritters who are salivating over the prospect of seeing the total Mueller report. They won't accept being able to see something they think can damage the president, but not be able to trumpet it far and wide, so they'll leak what they want, then act all outraged about what was leaked. I have no confidence that they will accept seeing it in secret and leaving it there.

Sorry but what "you are afraid of" has no legal standing

What part of what I said makes you think I believe otherwise? If they exercise their authority in a lawful manner, sure they can see the classified and private information. That's the law. I can still be absolutely convinced that they will not hesitate to leak every single piece of information they think might damage the president.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...buy subpoena, if he chooses to cooperate with the subloena. If he doesn't, a judge will intervene.

Hmm, no, you're still wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not by law.

Yes, by law, should they choose to subpoena it.

And Barr should take appropriate legal steps to quash that piece of crap subpoena.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We both know that whatever the democrats get will be released, one way or another.

But that's irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant at all. The whole point here is that that information is not supposed to be public knowledge. The Watergate decision that the left has pounced on like rabid pit bulls on a three-legged kitten specifically stated that it was okay to release that information to the Congressional committee because they could be expected to keep it internal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Congress cannot force the AG to break the law .

While they actually can, they won't. They will ask for it to be released to them unredacted, but not to the publiic.

And then hotfoot it to a phone to leak it to the press.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever told you this lied to you.

Hmm, no, you're still wrong.

And the AG will give them what he is legally required to give them -

...buy subpoena, if he chooses to cooperate with the subloena. If he doesn't, a judge will intervene.

And the first intervention he'll make is to ask what the compelling reason is for Congress to override the law and the rights of other people. So what is that reason? If I recall correctly, in the case of Nixon and Watergate, the investigation found that he was guilty, and Congress felt they needed additional info to prepare impeachment proceedings. Since Mueller's report did not find that Trump is guilty, why does Congress need to see the redacted info?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well.....Well.....Well. From MarketWatch - NOT a Liberal Rag.

Mueller Investigator Reportedly Say Findings Are More Damaging To Trump Than Barr Has Let On.

The conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation are more damaging to President Donald Trump than Attorney General William Barr has revealed, the New York Times reported late Wednesday. The Times said some investigators who were part of the probe are frustrated that Barr has undersold the findings, which may be creating a misleading narrative that could be hard to overcome if and when the full report is released. The sources did not specify how they believe the report is more damaging to Trump. The investigators told the Times that they had written numerous summaries of their main conclusions, which were not included in Barr's summary of the report. Barr said the report found no collusion between Trump and Russia, but did not exonerate Trump on the issue of obstruction of justice. House Democrats have pressed Barr to release the full report, but Barr claims parts of it needs to be redacted first for security reasons.

Well, well, well . . . MarketWatch may or may not be a "liberal rag", but the NYTimes sure as shit is, and since MarketWatch is merely reporting that the Times said it, guess whose reputation actually applies here?

Please note the vagueries and utter lack of anything meaningful and substantial before you get too far gone in creaming yourself at the new ray of hope that your vendetta might not be as dead as the dodo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 253911
View attachment 253912

We demand to see the full report...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

Waaaaaah! They are demanding to see the full report! Who's going to protect dear leader?!?!?! Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh

Waaaaaaahhhhh!!!! They won't give us the unredacted report!!!! How can we attack Trump if you won't let us fish for excuses???!!! What will we live for then???!!!!! WAaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

False. Senate republicans blocked the vote.

Please show us.

Senate blocks resolution calling for public release of Robert Mueller's report after House voted 420-0

I guess Republicans don't want to win the Senate next year.

I guess Democrats don't even try to hide that they consider winning more important than the law.

Oh? What law says the Attorney General can’t release the report?

Straw man. I never said the law prevented him from releasing the report, so thank you for your words you tried to shove in my mouth, but they are unwanted.

The law prevents him from releasing it unredacted. And if you don't know what law that is by this point in the discussion, you are too ignorant, uninformed, and slow on the uptake to deserve to remain in the discussion. So by all means, attempt to "cleverly" play dumb and pretend you're the only person in North America who has yet to hear the citation of the law requiring redaction of Grand Jury testimony in the hopes that you can bog down the discussion. I'll just ignore you as you'll have proven you deserve, and move the fuck on to someone who doesn't think "Duuuuhhhh" is a brilliant debate tactic.

 

[Lesh]

Straw man. I never said the law prevented him from releasing the report, so thank you for your words you tried to shove in my mouth, but they are unwanted.

The law prevents him from releasing it unredacted. And if you don't know what law that is by this point in the discussion, you are too ignorant, uninformed, and slow on the uptake to deserve to remain in the discussion. So by all means, attempt to "cleverly" play dumb and pretend you're the only person in North America who has yet to hear the citation of the law requiring redaction of Grand Jury testimony in the hopes that you can bog down the discussion. I'll just ignore you as you'll have proven you deserve, and move the fuck on to someone who doesn't think "Duuuuhhhh" is a brilliant debate tactic.

Bullshit.

Barr claimed four different categories for which he "needs" to redact.

Only ONE...the Grand Jury category has legal standing regarding Congress...

And that ONE...could be dealt with by asking a judge to release that Grand Jury testimony as was done in Watergate

So yea...you're full of shit and Barr is stonewalling

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bullshit.
Barr claimed four different categories for which he "needs" to redact.
Only ONE...the Grand Jury category has legal standing regarding Congress...

Congress will get what Barr gives them, and there's nothing you can do abuot it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

No, the House Committee can see the entire report, but the rest of Congress and the Public can not, they see a redacted form only as required by law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ultimately, sure. But good reason to fight as long as possible and warn the American people, naming the potential sources of the leaks.

How far back are we talking? Strzok talked about the Dems' 'Leak Strategy', and McCabe was recommended for Indictment for his about a year ago - which nothing has been done about....

I'm talking about the Congresscritters who are salivating over the prospect of seeing the total Mueller report. They won't accept being able to see something they think can damage the president, but not be able to trumpet it far and wide, so they'll leak what they want, then act all outraged about what was leaked. I have no confidence that they will accept seeing it in secret and leaving it there.

Sorry but what "you are afraid of" has no legal standing

What part of what I said makes you think I believe otherwise? If they exercise their authority in a lawful manner, sure they can see the classified and private information. That's the law. I can still be absolutely convinced that they will not hesitate to leak every single piece of information they think might damage the president.

Especially since they have no valid reason to need to see the redactable information anyway. The only reason they want to know is to continue their fishing expedition.

 

[hadit]

Ultimately, sure. But good reason to fight as long as possible and warn the American people, naming the potential sources of the leaks.

How far back are we talking? Strzok talked about the Dems' 'Leak Strategy', and McCabe was recommended for Indictment for his about a year ago - which nothing has been done about....

I'm talking about the Congresscritters who are salivating over the prospect of seeing the total Mueller report. They won't accept being able to see something they think can damage the president, but not be able to trumpet it far and wide, so they'll leak what they want, then act all outraged about what was leaked. I have no confidence that they will accept seeing it in secret and leaving it there.

Sorry but what "you are afraid of" has no legal standing

What part of what I said makes you think I believe otherwise? If they exercise their authority in a lawful manner, sure they can see the classified and private information. That's the law. I can still be absolutely convinced that they will not hesitate to leak every single piece of information they think might damage the president.

Especially since they have no valid reason to need to see the redactable information anyway. The only reason they want to know is to continue their fishing expedition.

That and try to squeeze the innocent.

 

[Faun]

Please show us.

Senate blocks resolution calling for public release of Robert Mueller's report after House voted 420-0

I guess Republicans don't want to win the Senate next year.

I guess Democrats don't even try to hide that they consider winning more important than the law.

Oh? What law says the Attorney General can’t release the report?

Straw man. I never said the law prevented him from releasing the report, so thank you for your words you tried to shove in my mouth, but they are unwanted.

The law prevents him from releasing it unredacted. And if you don't know what law that is by this point in the discussion, you are too ignorant, uninformed, and slow on the uptake to deserve to remain in the discussion. So by all means, attempt to "cleverly" play dumb and pretend you're the only person in North America who has yet to hear the citation of the law requiring redaction of Grand Jury testimony in the hopes that you can bog down the discussion. I'll just ignore you as you'll have proven you deserve, and move the fuck on to someone who doesn't think "Duuuuhhhh" is a brilliant debate tactic.

Utter nonsense. The non binding resolution called upon Barr to release the Mueller report to the public “except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law.”

 

[Faun]

Ultimately, sure. But good reason to fight as long as possible and warn the American people, naming the potential sources of the leaks.

How far back are we talking? Strzok talked about the Dems' 'Leak Strategy', and McCabe was recommended for Indictment for his about a year ago - which nothing has been done about....

I'm talking about the Congresscritters who are salivating over the prospect of seeing the total Mueller report. They won't accept being able to see something they think can damage the president, but not be able to trumpet it far and wide, so they'll leak what they want, then act all outraged about what was leaked. I have no confidence that they will accept seeing it in secret and leaving it there.

Sorry but what "you are afraid of" has no legal standing

What part of what I said makes you think I believe otherwise? If they exercise their authority in a lawful manner, sure they can see the classified and private information. That's the law. I can still be absolutely convinced that they will not hesitate to leak every single piece of information they think might damage the president.

Especially since they have no valid reason to need to see the redactable information anyway. The only reason they want to know is to continue their fishing expedition.

Utter nonsense. Of course they have a valid reason... they don’t trust Barr to not redact information they’re entitled to because it’s damaging to trump.

 

[nat4900]

Utter nonsense. Of course they have a valid reason... they don’t trust Barr to not redact information they’re entitled to because it’s damaging to trump.

Barr is facing a life-altering choice to make..........Cover-up for the guy that hired him....a guy who will be infamous for his totally inept administration......OR, protect his reputation throughout the many future years after the Trump regime is just a bad memory.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Barr is facing a life-altering choice to make..........Cover-up for the guy that hired him....a guy who will be infamous for his totally inept administration......OR, protect his reputation throughout the many future years after the Trump regime is just a bad memory.

You get to see exactly what Barr will let you see, and there's noting you can do about it.