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

[Faun]

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.

Huh? What in your post indicated you actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary?

 

[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.

And I have noted that you have waved the Leftist White Flag of Surrender, Nat.

 

[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.

Huh? What in your post indicated you actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary?

I read parts of it years ago, which is why I think the whole thing was unnecessary, but here it is for YOU to read:

The Starr Report

LINK

 

[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.

Well we’re getting some where. At least you understand that you’re fucking wrong.
And you DO realize that a request
“ in the public interest” got the grand jury stuff released to Congress on Watergate

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well we’re getting some where. At least you understand that you’re fucking wrong.
And you DO realize that a request
“ in the public interest” got the grand jury stuff released to Congress on Watergate

Until you can explain how you know the law better than the AGs office, your opinion does not matter.

 

[nat4900]

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.

Well, you're partially correct.......SANITY will never sway the Trump CULT membership of about 34% of the population...........Do all of you cult members get a free MAGA hat???

 

[nat4900]

And I have noted that you have waved the Leftist White Flag of Surrender, Nat.

Really????...................Want to ask me just how much I care about your "note taking".....LMAO

Have some more kool-aid

 

[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.

Well we’re getting some where. At least you understand that you’re fucking wrong.
And you DO realize that a request
“ in the public interest” got the grand jury stuff released to Congress on Watergate

You are so freaking ignorant and lazy!

Nixon's grand jury testimony was a YEAR after he resigned from office for obstruction charges, he resigned because IMPEACHMENT proceeding had started (Which was Feb, 6, 1974) , where his guilt was already proven overwhelming!

From Goveinfo

"About Records of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1971 -1977
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has made available 26 files from its Records of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force collection including transcripts of President Nixon’s grand jury testimony of June 23-24, 1975. This is as a result of the July 29, 2011 order by Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Royce C. Lamberth that the transcript of Nixon’s testimony and the “Associated Materials” to that testimony be released to the public following the review of these documents for any information that must be redacted as required by law."

red bolding mine

Here is the rest

You are truly terrible at this!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, you're partially correct.......SANITY will never sway the Trump CULT membership of about 34% of the population...........Do all of you cult members get a free MAGA hat???

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya? I've lost count of the number of times you've been told, by multiple people, that automatically labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you a "Trump cultist" merely results in everyone dismissing your posts entirely.

At this point, I'm going to start considering, "You don't applaud me! That means you're a Trump fan!" the same way I view a "funny" rating to avoid actual response: as a universal sign of cowardly leftist surrender.

Still not a fan of Trump, and STILL finding you more ignorant and more crass than he is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I have noted that you have waved the Leftist White Flag of Surrender, Nat.

Really????...................Want to ask me just how much I care about your "note taking".....LMAO

Have some more kool-aid

As usual, your massive leftist ego has led you to mistakenly believe that your "feewings" matter.

The point isn't what you care about, leftist. The point is that you have surrendered and are no longer relevant to the debate or worthy of notice . . . not that you ever really were to begin with.

Toddle along while the non-poltroons talk.

 

[hadit]

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.

That assumes there's something in the report he doesn't want released. Which parts have you seen?

 

[nat4900]

Still not a fan of Trump, and STILL finding you more ignorant and more crass than he is.

Maybe if I went around "grabbing pussies" you'd like me more???.............LMAO

 

[nat4900]

Which parts have you seen?

NONE.....Isn't THAT the whole fucking point of this thread???

 

[Lesh]

That assumes there's something in the report he doesn't want released. Which parts have you seen?

THAT assumes he has some legitimate reason for hiding it. He doesn't

 

[hadit]

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.

The laws have changed since then.

 

[hadit]

Which parts have you seen?

NONE.....Isn't THAT the whole fucking point of this thread???

To which the only reply need be, "It's coming. You won't get to see it, but don't worry, your favorite hate merchant will have something to pretend outrage over and satisfy that obsession of yours".

 

[hadit]

That assumes there's something in the report he doesn't want released. Which parts have you seen?

THAT assumes he has some legitimate reason for hiding it. He doesn't

And it will be released. Why are you so obstinate that it won't?

 

[nat4900]

To which the only reply need be, "It's coming.

NO dimwit.......the ISSUE here is WHAT "is coming".....Sure something will be coming...but it CANNOT be what Trump's stooges determine we should know of the report.....

The quicksand will be when Barr is subpoenaed before a House committee

 

[M14 Shooter]

That assumes there's something in the report he doesn't want released. Which parts have you seen?

THAT assumes he has some legitimate reason for hiding it. He doesn't

Until you can explain how you know the law better than the AGs office, your opinion does not matter.

 

[hadit]

To which the only reply need be, "It's coming.

NO dimwit.......the ISSUE here is WHAT "is coming".....Sure something will be coming...but it CANNOT be what Trump's stooges determine we should know of the report.....

The quicksand will be when Barr is subpoenaed before a House committee

Until he doesn't give you what you want, then it'll be on to the next thing. I noticed that you didn't quote my whole post. Naughty, naughty.