The Robert Mueller Investigation

[bolverk 29399]

Question: Which, in any, members of Congress have security clearances that allow them to see highly classified information?

[Enchubben 5509]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Its gonna be so redacted that it looks like a ream of brand new paper they just bought from Staples.

Lol and this is why I said dem’s will never be happy with the result unless it ends in impeachment. If it’s not the whole report, conspiracy. If it’s not immediate, conspiracy. If it’s too long or too short, conspiracy.

 

[HenryJames 65890]

6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

This thread needs more Robert Earl Keen. 

 

[kevwun 15647]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Question: Which, in any, members of Congress have security clearances that allow them to see highly classified information?

The Gang of 8 do.  The members are :

McConnell & Schumer
McCarthy & Pelosi
Burr & Warner
Nunes & Schiff

[wildcat09 29248]

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Demand access to the full and unredacted report immediately and threaten Barr with impeachment for obstruction.

But Pelosi won't do that, because she's garbage.

This. It's telling that they still haven't demanded Trump's taxes. Centrist Dems are worthless.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

20 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 (6E)

"But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime."

This Nancy would love for them to keep the report or release it in a limited form. Then she can keep pounding the Russian narrative....oh wait, she is smart enough to move on. She knows they got nothing. 

[Amos Moses 795]

11 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

This thread needs more Robert Earl Keen. 

 

[bolverk 29399]

3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The Gang of 8 do.  The members are :

McConnell & Schumer
McCarthy & Pelosi
Burr & Warner
Nunes & Schiff

If accurate, there are zero excuses for the report not being their hands at this very moment.

Edited March 29, 2019 by bolverk
English is hard.

[yoladu 4067]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There’s no reason Pelosi and Schiff can’t see the full unredacted report now.  They have as high a security clearance as Barr.  

Exactly. What exactly are they prepping that can't be seen by members of Congress with the appropriate security clearance?

Issue the unredacted report to members of Congress who have that security clearance NOW.

Issue a redacted report for public consumption when ready. ( i can wait)

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

“We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general, told Congress at the time. “The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry.”

[David Dennison 18656]

15 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Lol and this is why I said dem’s will never be happy with the result unless it ends in impeachment. If it’s not the whole report, conspiracy. If it’s not immediate, conspiracy. If it’s too long or too short, conspiracy.

 

They are going to have to show the full report to leadership. They have security clearances. 

[yoladu 4067]

31 minutes ago, XingTheRubicon said:

Imagine if there was every other network, a series of effeminate TV anchors/hosts, and elected representatives from a particular party that all parroted for 2 years the same talking points that our commander-in-chief was a Russian double agent.  Then, imagine that the closest they ever got to proving any actual collusion was a Rachel Maddow dream.  At some point, folks should hope that some degree of self-awareness would take hold or they would move on.  Then, they would be able to see what their party is doing (guaranteed loser socialism) today, right now.

effeminate TV anchors/hosts? I always appreciate it when one signals to me in the first sentence that whatever point(s) is coming after is going to be complete bullshit.

 

 

[bolverk 29399]

16 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

“We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general, told Congress at the time. “The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry.”

Again, redact the shit out of the version for public consumption. Release the full investigative report to those with the necessary clearances to ensure full Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch as called for the US Constitution that was written by our Founding Fathers.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

25 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The Gang of 8 do.  The members are :

McConnell & Schumer
McCarthy & Pelosi
Burr & Warner
Nunes & Schiff

Just to clarify, most members of Congress have some degree of security clearance but the gang of 8 has access to everything.  No one in government has a higher security clearance than them but that doesn’t mean they are beyond criminal liability for mishandling classified material. 

[Anastasis 23395]

I think that releasing separate versions for public vs. politician consumption is counterproductive.  I think that the full unredacted version should be released, as well as all accompanying primary source information.  Anything less will leave it to politicians to frame and distort and politic the findings.  I really don't need Nunes and Schiff interpreting and posturing around the findings and looking for every angle to inflict political damage as their primary objective. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Still don’t understand why Mueller didn’t have a report for public consumption ready to go. He went above and beyond with the 400 page report.  

[TwiceHorn 31275]

I'm very surprised that the press hasn't sued for release yet.  It may be that they recognize that ongoing investigation and national security are legit defenses to disclosure (possibly entirely) in a FOIA-type litigation and are waiting for that review to complete.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

29 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

“We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general, told Congress at the time. “The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry.”

Does this pertain to issues of national security and public safety?  Because the Mueller report is about a foreign government attacking the United States.  The public has every right to know exactly what happened. 

[TwiceHorn 31275]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that releasing separate versions for public vs. politician consumption is counterproductive.  I think that the full unredacted version should be released, as well as all accompanying primary source information.  Anything less will leave it to politicians to frame and distort and politic the findings.  I really don't need Nunes and Schiff interpreting and posturing around the findings and looking for every angle to inflict political damage as their primary objective. 

 

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Still don’t understand why Mueller didn’t have a report for public consumption ready to go. He went above and beyond with the 400 page report.  

I agree that two versions are problematic, especially if one isn't simply a redacted version of the other.  You can scream "obfuscation" all you want to, but I think review and redaction by the various stakeholders is legitimate and unavoidable. And that's why I don't think Mueller tried to generate a "clean' version.  That would have been his interpretation of a clean version, without the input of the others.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Does this pertain to issues of national security and public safety?  Because the Mueller report is about a foreign government attacking the United States.  The public has every right to know exactly what happened. 

No it doesn't.  But grand jury information covered by Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6 might include such information.

The IC information (that I have called "national security") would almost certainly include the ways in which various US entities discovered the identity of the hackers in the Russian indictment.  In a grand jury proceeding, you don't just show up and say "our spies found this," you present testimony, affidavits and documents prepared by the spies themselves.  You have to protect the identity of those spies and the methods they used.  Ask Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby about that.

That list of material to be redacted is completely legitimate.  How and to what extent the redactions are made may be a different story, but that is completely legit.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

"As we have discussed, I share you desire to ensure that Congress and the public have the opportunity to read the Special Counsel's report. We are preparing the report for release, making the redactions that are required. The Special Counsel is assisting us with this process," Barr wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler. "Our progress is such that I anticipate we will be in a position to released the report by mid-April, if not sooner. Although the President would have the right to assert executive privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/03/29/breaking-mueller-n2543999

 

 

[yoladu 4067]

Not allowing the Gang of 8 to view the unredacted, untouched version is completely unacceptable. I can't believe it has been a week.

I understand the need for redactions, but there needs to be another set of eyes (outside the Justice Department) of the unredacted report, so no funny business occurs with the redaction process.

Having the Gang of 8 be that group seems logical and suitable.

 

[RomaVicta 29786]

2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

Remember when the GOPs on the Senate Judiciary Committee handed over 1500 pages about Kavanaugh the day before hearings started? Remember the other bills that they didn't even show anybody until shortly before the vote?

I loves them Goppers. 

I think they are delaying hoping to find a big distraction. I suspect the GOP has no winning move regarding the report and the ongoing investigations. Their only hope is delay and distract and then brass it out to see if the public rises up.

We'll see either a military action (maybe Korea or even norther Mexico) or one morning a bunch of drugged Dems will wake up in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.

The GOP is a trapped possum.

[ruitxn 295]

2 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

So Mid-April is bringing round 2 of lib tears. 

No, 400 redacted pages of Republican ass wipes.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

21 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

"As we have discussed, I share you desire to ensure that Congress and the public have the opportunity to read the Special Counsel's report. We are preparing the report for release, making the redactions that are required. The Special Counsel is assisting us with this process," Barr wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler. "Our progress is such that I anticipate we will be in a position to released the report by mid-April, if not sooner. Although the President would have the right to assert executive privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/03/29/breaking-mueller-n2543999

 

 

The actual outcome may be different but Barr is making all the right legal noises so far.  I read that as meaning it will be Mueller's report with black bars in it.

We should probably be grateful that a real lawyer like Barr is handling this instead of a hack politician with a law degree like Jeff Sessions.

If the actual released report is a black-barred version of the original, I might expect the press to test the redactions in court in a real and public way, free from most political spin.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The actual outcome may be different but Barr is making all the right legal noises so far.  I read that as meaning it will be Mueller's report with black bars in it.

Barr has no business in this process.  The Mueller report should have gone directly from Mueller to Congress.  Congress can oversee the appropriate redactions and screen it through DOJ for public release.  The whole point of Mueller was to produce an honest assessment without political interference.  Barr inserting himself in the process undermines the whole thing. 

[XingTheRubicon 134]

!!!!!!!

[workswithseed 2036]

5 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No, what it says is it's easier to commit crimes than it is to get caught.

Yeah, this isn't a great argument.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Barr has no business in this process.  The Mueller report should have gone directly from Mueller to Congress.  Congress can oversee the appropriate redactions and screen it through DOJ for public release.  The whole point of Mueller was to produce an honest assessment without political interference.  Barr inserting himself in the process undermines the whole thing. 

You're wrong.  There's a procedure set out for this by the DOJ rules and Barr is following it to the letter.  Congress has been free to pass its own law about it and and did for a while, but let it lapse 20 years ago.

I understand your preference for Congress over the executive at this point in time, but you consistently overestimate the ability of Congress to get anything done, much less getting anything done without promoting further grandstanding and bullshit. Congress can't even do its job on a reliable basis, much less jobs like this that it isn't even designed for.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're wrong.  There's a procedure set out for this by the DOJ rules and Barr is following it to the letter.  Congress has been free to pass its own law about it and and did for a while, but let it lapse 20 years ago.

I understand your preference for Congress over the executive at this point in time, but you consistently overestimate the ability of Congress to get anything done, much less getting anything done without promoting further grandstanding and bullshit. Congress can't even do its job on a reliable basis, much less jobs like this that it isn't even designed for.

Oh, I’m well aware it’s procedural and legally acceptable. I’m saying it’s wrong.  It’s a president and his AG abusing their power trying to rule through law instead of behaving in good faith allegiance to the public and the rule of law. 

Mueller is the prosecutor and Trump appointed his own judge in Barr to get him off the hook, which he has done and is doing.  Nothing prevented Barr from handing Mueller’s report directly to Congress on day one. 

This isn’t right. 

The American people just changed Congress precisely to check this type of bullshit. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31275]

Incidentally, I fully endorse JimmyJames and Hugo calling Porn Party a troll.

Just sayin.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh, I’m well aware it’s procedural and legally acceptable. I’m saying it’s wrong.  It’s a president  and his AG abusing their power trying to rule through law instead of behaving in good faith allegiance to the public and the rule of law. 

Mueller is the prosecutor and Trump appointed his own judge in Barr to get him off the hook, which he has done and is doing.  Nothing prevented Barr from handing Mueller’s report directly to Congress on day one. 

This isn’t right. 

Maybe, maybe not.  But the rules give the AG that discretion and enjoin him to follow other applicable law and DOJ policy.  Things like Fed. R. Crim. Pro 6.  We'll see how it shakes out.  All outward appearances are legit at this point.

I place more faith in the press and courts to fix unlawful redactions than congress.

[elfenix 34171]

2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 (6E)

"But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime."

this is just a weird phrase.

[Enchubben 5509]

I think dems will need to come to grips with the possibility that the report will exonerate trump. No one knows for sure what’s in there until it’s released, but I doubt that trump would be still taking a hard stance that there’s nothing in there if he knows “mueller is closing in”.

Id be shocked if Barr would have released that 4 page summary if he knew the report in full would contradict it.

[David Dennison 18656]

Just now, Enchubben said:

I think dems will need to come to grips with the possibility that the report will exonerate trump. No one knows for sure what’s in there until it’s released, but I doubt that trump would be still taking a hard stance that there’s nothing in there if he knows “mueller is closing in”.

Id be shocked if Barr would have released that 4 page summary if he knew the report in full would contradict it.

I think you need to come to grips with the possibility that the report most definitely does not exonerate Trump. 

[Nope 3111]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

I think dems will need to come to grips with the possibility that the report will exonerate trump. No one knows for sure what’s in there until it’s released, but I doubt that trump would be still taking a hard stance that there’s nothing in there if he knows “mueller is closing in”.

Id be shocked if Barr would have released that 4 page summary if he knew the report in full would contradict it.

If the report exonerated Trump, Barr would have never come out and specifically said that it does NOT exonerate him like he did.

[SDG 3319]

3 minutes ago, Nope said:

If the report exonerated Trump, Barr would have never come out and specifically said that it does NOT exonerate him like he did.

If he was guilty....   

my hope is that rm gets called to testify to congress so all of this delusion will go away and we can start addressing real issues.  

[Anastasis 23395]

40 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Barr has no business in this process.  The Mueller report should have gone directly from Mueller to Congress.  Congress can oversee the appropriate redactions and screen it through DOJ for public release.  The whole point of Mueller was to produce an honest assessment without political interference.  Barr inserting himself in the process undermines the whole thing. 

He should send it to Congress to ensure that the publication of the report is not politicized!

Lul, no.  The full unredacted report should be released to the public. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Pretty easy to conclude the report doesn’t exonerate Trump if you read the part Barr quoted directly from the report that says, “it also does not exonerate him.”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He should send it to Congress to ensure that the publication of the report is not politicized!

Lul, no.  The full unredacted report should be released to the public. 

From a procedural standpoint, if Mueller found evidence of crimes committed by the president, which according to Barr’s little letter he did, someone has a responsibility to report that evidence to the House Judiciary Committee in Congress.

Why not done?

Edited March 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 18656]

9 minutes ago, SDG said:

If he was guilty....   

my hope is that rm gets called to testify to congress so all of this delusion will go away and we can start addressing real issues.  

And testify that there was evidence that the president broke the law.

I'm sure that will go over well.

[DanTheHorn 4901]

23 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I think dems will need to come to grips with the possibility that the report will exonerate trump. No one knows for sure what’s in there until it’s released, but I doubt that trump would be still taking a hard stance that there’s nothing in there if he knows “mueller is closing in”.

Id be shocked if Barr would have released that 4 page summary if he knew the report in full would contradict it.

Quote

Quote from Barr Letter:

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

Edited March 29, 2019 by DanTheHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

HJC Chair responds to Barr:

”Mar 29, 2019 

Washington, D.C. –Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement in response to a letter he received from Attorney General William Barr:

“As I informed the Attorney General earlier this week, Congress requires the full and complete Mueller report, without redactions, as well as access to the underlying evidence, by April 2.  That deadline still stands.

“As I also informed him, rather than expend valuable time and resources trying to keep certain portions of this report from Congress, he should work with us to request a court order to release any and all grand jury information to the House Judiciary Committee—as has occurred in every similar investigation in the past.  There is ample precedent for the Department of Justice sharing all of the information that the Attorney General proposes to redact to the appropriate congressional committees. Again, Congress must see the full report.

“I appreciate the Attorney General’s offer to testify before the Committee on May 2.  We will take that date under advisement.  However, we feel that it is critical for Attorney General Barr to come before Congress immediately to explain the rationale behind his letter, his rapid decision that the evidence developed was insufficient to establish an obstruction of justice offense, and his continued refusal to provide us with the full report.”

https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-nadler-responds-latest-letter-attorney-general-barr

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Also lol at Barr walking back his first letter by saying in today’s letter, (paraphrasing) “my first letter wasn’t a summary of the report, it was a summary of the principle conclusions”  and “I get to exert executive privilege on behalf of the President because he gave me permission.” 

yes, I’m watching CNN

Edited March 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[retread 2951]

That second one is gonna be Cheeto's get out of jail free card. Old tricks are the best tricks, ay?

 

46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe, maybe not.  But the rules give the AG that discretion and enjoin him to follow other applicable law and DOJ policy.  Things like Fed. R. Crim. Pro 6.  We'll see how it shakes out.  All outward appearances are legit at this point.

I place more faith in the press and courts to fix unlawful redactions than congress.

^ Twice, do you favor special counsel or the old independent counsel?

Seems like the SC is vulnerable to conflicts of interest (like Hugo described). On the other hand, ICs have conducted long, wandering investigations (like Whitewater) that can look like fishing expeditions.

Edited March 29, 2019 by retread

[Dahobbs 17447]

33 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I think dems will need to come to grips with the possibility that the report will exonerate trump. No one knows for sure what’s in there until it’s released, but I doubt that trump would be still taking a hard stance that there’s nothing in there if he knows “mueller is closing in”.

Id be shocked if Barr would have released that 4 page summary if he knew the report in full would contradict it.

Didn't Barr's letter quote the report specifically saying it didn't exonerate him? Seriously... 

[TwiceHorn 31275]

17 minutes ago, retread said:

That second one is gonna be Cheeto's get out of jail free card. Old tricks are the best tricks, ay?

 

^ Twice, do you favor special counsel or the old independent counsel?

Seems like the SC is vulnerable to conflicts of interest (like Hugo described). On the other hand, ICs have conducted long, wandering investigations (like Whitewater) that can look like fishing expeditions.

I really think their ought to be something more definitive than Federal Regulations governing it.  There were a lot of legitimate criticisms of the old law, and it was revised a couple of times.  And any of them are probably going to raise separation of powers concerns.

Under I think all iterations of the old law, the Independent Counsel answered to a panel of judges and had to clear changes of scope with them.  The judges also decided whether and how much of the report to make public.

And on the Starr Report, they chose to let it all hang out, which was a decision subject to much criticism, both partisan and objective.  It's one of the reasons the current rule does not require full disclosure of the report, according to Neal Katyal.

It seems to me that maybe some laws addressing the periphery of it, like who gets the report and under what circumstances, could be done without a bunch of constitutional concerns.  But of course Congress would have to pass it and would probably try to overreach.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

Schiff's response mirrors Nadler's:

 

House has levers to pull if WH continues to completely stonewall oversight:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Chrispy 132]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

I think dems will need to come to grips with the possibility that the report will exonerate trump. No one knows for sure what’s in there until it’s released, but I doubt that trump would be still taking a hard stance that there’s nothing in there if he knows “mueller is closing in”.

Id be shocked if Barr would have released that 4 page summary if he knew the report in full would contradict it.

They can’t let it go because they peddled collusion delusion for the past two years and they’re in too deep. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

They can’t let it go because they peddled collusion delusion for the past two years and they’re in too deep. 

Why, in your mind, don't Republicans want us, their employers, to see the full report?

What, in your mind, does Barr mean when he writes that the report does not exonerate the President?