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

[M14 Shooter]

It is hilarious that a few people here have already made up their minds about Barr and the report itself, even when shown evidence that there are legal rules in place for some parts of the Mueller report that are said to have Grand Jury material in it, and other material that are considered classified, that are obviously going to be redacted from the publics view.

Why not reserve judgement first until the Mueller report gets released for exposure to see what is really there. I expect that AG Barr will explain the redactions in detail as it make sense to do so.

The left is desperate for a narrative; as a result, they talk out their ass.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Upon what do you base this > ("House Committee can see the entire report")

Here's the rule with liberals:

It would be great if it were true. Ergo, it's true.​

 

[candycorn]

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?

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
How, exactly, and considering the constitutional role of the executive branch, do you suggest that be done?

 

[candycorn]

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
How, exactly, and considering the constitutional role of the executive branch, do you suggest that be done?

Brighter minds than mine could answer the question.

Direct election of the AG May be the way to go.

Clearly our system currently has built in conflicts of interest. And has for years. Trump is just the latest to overtly exploit them

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
How, exactly, and considering the constitutional role of the executive branch, do you suggest that be done?

Brighter minds than mine could answer the question.

And so, like usual, you have no clue about what you speak.

 

[Lesh]

Sadly..the way the Special Counsel rules were written, they assumed an ethical independent AG would be in charge of the DOJ.

That clearly was naive

Barr is within his legal right not to release anything more than the barest of statements.

NOTHING however prohibits him from releasing all of it...including the Grand Jury Testimony to Congress if he simply requests from that judge that it be released.

And nothing prohibits Congress from executing a subpoena which by law... Barr would have to comply with...by law.

Barr will of course fight tooth and nail to protect "The Don" (how aptly named) being his new consiglieri

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sadly..the way the Special Counsel rules were written, they assumed an ethical independent AG would be in charge of the DOJ.
That clearly was naive
Barr is within his legal right not to release anything more than the barest of statements.

And so, whatever you get is all you're entitled to.
The fact it doesn't make you happy means... nothing.

 

[nat4900]

The bit of good news, folks, is that just based on the sheer number of contested republican Senate seats, a major change will occur in 2020.

Barr's tenure will be as short as Sessions'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The bit of good news, folks, is that just based on the sheer number of contested republican Senate seats, a major change will occur in 2020.

You people never learn.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tardo above seems to just like saying stupid shit.

There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to Congress

Fucking liar.

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

Appeals court orders grand jury testimony unsealed i

Grand juries - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Court Says Lawyers Can Reveal Clients' Grand Jury Testimony ...

By all means, feel free to go to a judge and request that he unseal the Grand Jury testimony.

But spare us all this bullshit about "having a right" to it automatically.

I would suggest you put a LOT of work into producing a coherent reason why it should be unsealed beforehand, because right now, you have shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

It has classified information.
: itsok:

Then why did Donald say he was OK releasing it?
You're inferring that Donald doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I'd agree with you.

.
I'm just fucking with you. You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

.
.

He knows exactly what he's talking about. He's talking about his personal feelings on the subject.

The problem here is that you don't seem to know that his personal feelings are irrelevant to the actual topic. The laws about confidential information don't give a rat's ass about Donald Trump's personal feelings about the information.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tardo above seems to just like saying stupid shit.

There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to Congress

Fucking liar.

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

Appeals court orders grand jury testimony unsealed i

Grand juries - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Court Says Lawyers Can Reveal Clients' Grand Jury Testimony ...

I haven't seen a court order for specific elements to be released. If you gutter scum Marxists DO try to use the courts, it will go to the SCOTUS.

But until that point, you're just a fucking liar - as are your fellow Stalinists. Barr is prohibited BY LAW from releasing what the filthy fucks in congress are demanding - you just hope that enough people can be fooled so that you can fling shit and claim a cover up.

I wish them lots of luck convincing a judge that grand jury proceedings must be unsealed on the basis of what they "think" MIGHT be contained in or redacted from a report they haven't even seen yet.

 

[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?

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

Your claims are silly since they are not even remotely comparable. For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public. From Wikipedia:

"Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. "

The report ended up being mostly about sex stuff.

This is NOT a legal precedence, because they are as different as night and day.

 

[Lesh]

Tardo above seems to just like saying stupid shit.

There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to Congress

Fucking liar.

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

Appeals court orders grand jury testimony unsealed i

Grand juries - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Court Says Lawyers Can Reveal Clients' Grand Jury Testimony ...

I haven't seen a court order for specific elements to be released. If you gutter scum Marxists DO try to use the courts, it will go to the SCOTUS.

But until that point, you're just a fucking liar - as are your fellow Stalinists. Barr is prohibited BY LAW from releasing what the filthy fucks in congress are demanding - you just hope that enough people can be fooled so that you can fling shit and claim a cover up.

I wish them lots of luck convincing a judge that grand jury proceedings must be unsealed on the basis of what they "think" MIGHT be contained in or redacted from a report they haven't even seen yet.

You have heard of Watergate right dumbass?

 

[Lesh]

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?

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

Your claims are silly since they are not even remotely comparable. For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public. From Wikipedia:

"Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. "

The report ended up being mostly about sex stuff.

This is NOT a legal precedence, because they are as different as night and day.

So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?

Oh...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Tardo above seems to just like saying stupid shit.

There is no law preventing Barr from releasing the entire report to Congress

Fucking liar.

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

Appeals court orders grand jury testimony unsealed i

Grand juries - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Court Says Lawyers Can Reveal Clients' Grand Jury Testimony ...

I haven't seen a court order for specific elements to be released. If you gutter scum Marxists DO try to use the courts, it will go to the SCOTUS.

But until that point, you're just a fucking liar - as are your fellow Stalinists. Barr is prohibited BY LAW from releasing what the filthy fucks in congress are demanding - you just hope that enough people can be fooled so that you can fling shit and claim a cover up.

I wish them lots of luck convincing a judge that grand jury proceedings must be unsealed on the basis of what they "think" MIGHT be contained in or redacted from a report they haven't even seen yet.

You have heard of Watergate right dumbass?

Did YOU watch the Watergate proceedings that ran LIVE on TV?

I watched it as a Teenager.

A Look Back at the Senate Watergate Hearings

"The Watergate hearings began on May 17, 1973. Public Television aired all 250 hours of testimony that summer. Here are some of the highlights. Video edited by Justin Scuiletti"

bolding mine

Snicker...…………..

 

[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?

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

Your claims are silly since they are not even remotely comparable. For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public. From Wikipedia:

"Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. "

The report ended up being mostly about sex stuff.

This is NOT a legal precedence, because they are as different as night and day.

So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?

Oh...

You are simply too dumb to understand what I posted, I actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary.

Here it is again that you must have skimmed over:

"For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public."

They are NOT comparable investigations which you apparently know is true since you didn't dispute it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

So what I'm hearing you say is, "Anything that prevents leftists from getting what they want requires the complete revision of the government so that they do get whatever they want."

 

[Cecilie1200]

The bit of good news, folks, is that just based on the sheer number of contested republican Senate seats, a major change will occur in 2020.

Barr's tenure will be as short as Sessions'.

Oh, yeah, because the rabid partisan hatred you leftists are displaying is DEFINITELY appealing to voters and a ticket to sweeping victories.

PLEASE run with that idea.