The Robert Mueller Investigation

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Barr’s letter was pure political theater. 

D) Strongly disagree.  Barr is following a script laid out by the rules.  Nadler is not following any script at all.  He's just making a lot of noise.  You happen to like that noise, but it isn't in accordance with the "rule of law" that you love so much.

[jimmyjazz 45,557]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Barr is following a script laid out by the rules.

That seems a bit of a stretch.  He was clearly trying to twist public opinion.  That's not "in the rules".  It may be common, but it's hardly required by design.

[hayden_horn 11,360]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

D) Strongly disagree.  Barr is following a script laid out by the rules.  Nadler is not following any script at all.  He's just making a lot of noise.  You happen to like that noise, but it isn't in accordance with the "rule of law" that you love so much.

 

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That seems a bit of a stretch.  He was clearly trying to twist public opinion.  That's not "in the rules".  It may be common, but it's hardly required by design.

yeah, i'm going to go ahead and agree with jimmy here, based on the selective parsing of quotes barr chose to employ in his "was once a summary, but now is totally not a summary" letter.

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Redacted reports are created in the courts the way I described.  Redactions are made, their appropriateness for Congress and the public are tested on an individual basis.

Nadler trying to argue that congress has a right to the full report, without having the first clue what's actually in it, is a non-starter.  Pure theater.

The subpoena putting this in the court system would allow oversight to what Barr redacted for the public.

Both of Barr’s letters are political theatre. All he was required to do was state whether SC was hampered by the AG or acting AG. This is politics. There is theatre. 

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

D) Strongly disagree.  Barr is following a script laid out by the rules.  Nadler is not following any script at all.  He's just making a lot of noise.  You happen to like that noise, but it isn't in accordance with the "rule of law" that you love so much.

What did the law require Barr to release? Then, what did Barr choose to release?

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

16 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

What did the law require Barr to release? Then, what did Barr choose to release?

Nothing. The regulations require the AG to release NOTHING except the March 22 letter he sent to Congress at the conclusion of the investigation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

See 28 CFR 600.8 governing what the SC gives to the AG, and 600.9 governing what the AG has to give to Congress and secondarily the public.

If you're lazy (we've been through this before):

Quote

The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports 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.

Left to the sound discretion of the Attorney General as constrained by applicable law and DOJ guidelines.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

“The Mueller report, as well as the results of the counterintelligence aspects of the investigation, must be made public so that the American people can make an informed decision when choosing their next president. The House of Representatives will play a critical role in determining whether, and to what extent, that happens. The House has broad powers to compel disclosure of information, including classified information, that is necessary to carry out its legislative and oversight functions. It may not be able to get that information without a fight, and that fight will take time. But members of Congress can make a very strong case that, legally, they should prevail. Whatever the end result, it is a battle that is worth fighting. In light of the possibility that Mueller’s team uncovered significant derogatory information about the president and his inner circle, Congress cannot simply ignore the potential ramifications for American security, even if criminal offenses “cannot be established.” The stakes—for the rule of law and for American security—are simply too high.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/understand-muellers-work-focus-counterintelligence

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[CowboyFred 1,151]

Fuck Hugo I generally liked you as a poster, but you're bordering on straight up obsession recently.  Mueller is working with Barr to go over the report and remove information.  It appears on its face that they are following the process that has been laid out for this type of stuff.  Twice and triple are pretty much laying it out so even an aggy could potentially understand.  I have few issues with the way this is progressing and look forward to reading the report or a summary.  You on the other hand are crying conspiracy in every reply.

Relax man

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

“The Mueller report, as well as the results of the counterintelligence aspects of the investigation, must be made public so that the American people can make an informed decision when choosing their next president. The House of Representatives will play a critical role in determining whether, and to what extent, that happens. The House has broad powers to compel disclosure of information, including classified information, that is necessary to carry out its legislative and oversight functions. It may not be able to get that information without a fight, and that fight will take time. But members of Congress can make a very strong case that, legally, they should prevail. Whatever the end result, it is a battle that is worth fighting. In light of the possibility that Mueller’s team uncovered significant derogatory information about the president and his inner circle, Congress cannot simply ignore the potential ramifications for American security, even if criminal offenses “cannot be established.” The stakes—for the rule of law and for American security—are simply too high.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/understand-muellers-work-focus-counterintelligence

 

That's just an opinion.  And Barr has committed to release of the report.  And to the extent public interest outweighs redactions made based on applicable law and policy, a court can so order.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[CowboyFred 1,151]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

“The Mueller report, as well as the results of the counterintelligence aspects of the investigation, must be made public so that the American people can make an informed decision when choosing their next president. The House of Representatives will play a critical role in determining whether, and to what extent, that happens. The House has broad powers to compel disclosure of information, including classified information, that is necessary to carry out its legislative and oversight functions. It may not be able to get that information without a fight, and that fight will take time. But members of Congress can make a very strong case that, legally, they should prevail. Whatever the end result, it is a battle that is worth fighting. In light of the possibility that Mueller’s team uncovered significant derogatory information about the president and his inner circle, Congress cannot simply ignore the potential ramifications for American security, even if criminal offenses “cannot be established.” The stakes—for the rule of law and for American security—are simply too high.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/understand-muellers-work-focus-counterintelligence

 

you know that's just like someone's opinion, right?

edit: twice beat me to it

Edited April 1, 2019 by CowboyFred

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nothing. The regulations require the AG to release NOTHING except the March 22 letter he sent to Congress at the conclusion of the investigation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

See 28 CFR 600.8 governing what the SC gives to the AG, and 600.9 governing what the AG has to give to Congress and secondarily the public.

 

Wrong. He was required to release to Congress whether any requested actions by SC were denied. That was it. All other parts of Barr’s four page letter and all of his walk-back letter was Barr’s choice and entirely theatre.

Edited April 1, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

2 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

Fuck Hugo I generally liked you as a poster, but you're bordering on straight up obsession recently.  Mueller is working with Barr to go over the report and remove information.  It appears on its face that they are following the process that has been laid out for this type of stuff.  Twice and triple are pretty much laying it out so even an aggy could potentially understand.  I have few issues with the way this is progressing and look forward to reading the report or a summary.  You on the other hand are crying conspiracy in every reply.

Relax man

Glad you're finding what I post useful.  I'm really not opposed to anything Hugo or Triple post, I think in some global, cosmic sense, they're right about public disclosure and may be right about reindeer games being played.  I hope not.  But hope in one hand, shit in the other  . . .  .

But I think there is a process to go through here, and Barr is following it, poorly considered protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's just an opinion.  And Barr has committed to release of the report.  And to the extent public interest outweighs redactions made based on applicable law and policy, a court can so order.

Is there something wrong with opinions? Are opinions different from yours usually just picking nits? 

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Wrong. He was required to release to Congress whether AG concluded any proposed actions by SC was denied. That was it. All other parts of Barr’s four page letter and all of his walk-back letter was Barr’s choice and entirely theatre.

Geezus fucking shit.  You admit what I said and then call it wrong.

He was required to give the March 22 letter.  He was not required to give the March 24 letter, but did so in his discretion and to advise that he intended to release a redacted version of the report.  All in either anticipation or response to poo flinging from Congress.  The third letter was specifically in response to poo flinging by Nadler.

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Is there something wrong with opinions? Are opinions different from yours usually just picking nits? 

Unworthy of response.

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Geezus fucking shit.  You admit what I said and then call it wrong.

He was required to give the March 22 letter.  He was not required to give the March 24 letter, but did so in his discretion and to advise that he intended to release a redacted version of the report.  All in either anticipation or response to poo flinging from Congress.  The third letter was specifically in response to poo flinging by Nadler.

You were wrong. I didn’t admit what you said. The March 22 letter needed to say one thing - only one thing. That one thing was - whether SC was stymied. That was it. The rest of the 4 page letter was theatre and all of his follow up letter was theatre. Why are you arguing against this? This should be rather non confrontational idea. It’s ok to say Barr is involved in theatre. Everyone should understand where politics is fitting into the process, especially when “law and order” is used to tamper opinions

[EuroHorn 3,204]

The conspiracy nuts will never be satisfied...

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

The conspiracy nuts will never be satisfied...

Nothing new about that.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

The public should be satisfied even though the AG, according to the AG, hasn't even released a summary of the Special Counsel investigation. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

22 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

Fuck Hugo I generally liked you as a poster, but you're bordering on straight up obsession recently.  Mueller is working with Barr to go over the report and remove information.  It appears on its face that they are following the process that has been laid out for this type of stuff.  Twice and triple are pretty much laying it out so even an aggy could potentially understand.  I have few issues with the way this is progressing and look forward to reading the report or a summary.  You on the other hand are crying conspiracy in every reply.

Relax man

Whatever brah, the only person we’ve heard from is Barr and we’re all supposed to blindly trust him?  Yeah, okay.

I’m tired of this administration playing games with the media and public perception.  This has been the Trump defense strategy from the beginning. It’s sad we tolerate it and you can’t see it. 

The facts will get out eventually but this administration is making sure by the time they do there won’t be any accountability. 

Keep your head in the sand tho...

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Whatever brah, the only person we’ve heard from is Barr and we’re all supposed to blindly trust him?  Yeah, okay.

I’m tired of this administration playing games with the media and public perception.  This has been the Trump defense strategy from the beginning. It’s sad we tolerate it and you can’t see it. 

The facts will get out eventually but this administration is making sure by the time they do there won’t be any accountability. 

Keep your head in the sand tho...

I think it is critical for folks to understand that Barr’s public release of information thus far is completely and totally political theatre.

Some seem to think his actions thus far are above question because he is “following the process.” That isn’t the case. His public release of a few quotes from the report was his decision. Public release of his opinion on obstruction was his decision. He didn’t have to do that. What else is he doing/not doing behind the scenes that we don’t know about? What redactions will be based on Barr’s opinion? This is why we need oversight.

Edited April 1, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[shnsajax 3,589]

27 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

The conspiracy nuts will never be satisfied...

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

1 minute ago, seven said:

This guy literally thinks Hillary has had over 50 political enemies assassinated 

This American life does an entertaining look into Jones’ early life. 

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/670/beware-the-jabberwock

 

[DDD Dad 14,251]

Twice horn is killing it in this thread today. Some of the rest of you guys need to step away from the keyboard for a little while and see how things develop.

[Captainant 27,451]

1 hour ago, CowboyFred said:

Mueller is working with Barr to go over the report and remove information.  It appears on its face that they are following the process that has been laid out for this type of stuff.

Literally, the only basis you have for believing this is that Barr said this is the case. Mueller could have provided an initial suggestion of redactions, which Barr could add on to and he would still be "working with Mueller". 

[RomaVicta 29,784]

16 hours ago, triplehorn said:

From Barr's opening paragraph in his initial letter:

"Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

Third paragraph:

"Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report."

 

But the first statement in the opening paragraph is the one that should grab your attention as he's "summarizing the results of the investigation."

In his follow-up letter to Graham and Nadler, note the change in the opening sentence of the third graph:

  Hide contents

That's a walkback.

Or a planned, tactical retreat.

These aren't stupid people. He needed the word summary in the initial letter so the hoopleheads and operatives could claim the president is cleared. He knew it wasn't a proper summary.

He knew the document would be later referred to as a summary and he would have to claim he never intended for it to be a summary. By then (now) the vast public paying attention still believes it's a summary no matter what letters are exchanged between the AG and Congress. Mission accomplished.

I just heard a sensible sounding fellow calling in to Rush to say he thinks people are ready to move on with their lives and put the Mueller investigation behind 'em. Rush had been railing about the Clintons as the real crooks in all of this, so he asked the guy if he himself should stop talking about it.

The caller said something like, "Yessir. At this point it just seems like crowing after a victory."

I'm sure it wasn't staged at all.

Dissemble, deny, delay, declare it's time to move on. I'd say Barr is playing his part. I'd guess they're thinking that if they can stonewall another two weeks, they just might be in the clear.

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

15 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Twice horn is killing it in this thread today. Some of the rest of you guys need to step away from the keyboard for a little while and see how things develop.

Appreciate it, friendo!

I know you know the feeling when an opponent starts picking at your letter.  "Nyah, nyah, you said it was a summary of the results of the investigation!  Snot!  Snot!"

So irritating.  I need to step away at times myself.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

10 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Twice horn is killing it in this thread today. Some of the rest of you guys need to step away from the keyboard for a little while and see how things develop.

Except I said this is how it would play out before Mueller turned in his report.  Trump would use Barr to weaponize the Mueller investigation to his advantage before we would get to see it.  The facts do not matter.  The truth is whatever Trump says it is.  The republicans would create the reality they wanted and everyone else would have to adjust. Nothing of any consequence will come from the Mueller report unless someone demands it. 

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

Another thing that occurred to me while I was away is that Barr's "interpretation" of the evidence against Trump very likely means he's not going to redact it on "non-indicted person" grounds.  I would think there would be a waiver/cat out of the bag argument if he did.  Not to mention any public or congressional interest that would outweigh privacy.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[RomaVicta 29,784]

1 hour ago, EuroHorn said:

The conspiracy nuts will never be satisfied...

 

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nothing new about that.  

We defintely need to consult the nutballs who think the Clintons murder people and pass out uranium to our enemies on how to cure hateful obsession.

[jimmyjazz 45,557]

23 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Twice horn is killing it in this thread today. Some of the rest of you guys need to step away from the keyboard for a little while and see how things develop.

You do realize it's entirely possible for both sides of that argument to be correct?

[DDD Dad 14,251]

The irony in all of this speculation is that the current SC regulations were created to prevent the sort of prurient interest of the public and politically driven character assassination and collateral damage that the Starr report caused.  It's far from a perfect process, and I fully expect to see significant changes made to it (if not new attempts to craft independent counsel legislation).  I'm keeping my powder dry on this whole process despite my deep skepticism of Barr until I've seen how this plays out.

Hugo, your prediction isn't particularly notable.  I expect that most of us anticipated something along these lines, in the absence of the worst case scenario (clear and convincing evidence of conspiracy between the president and the Russian government).

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Or a planned, tactical retreat.

These aren't stupid people. He needed the word summary in the initial letter so the hoopleheads and operatives could claim the president is cleared. He knew it wasn't a proper summary.

He knew the document would be later referred to as a summary and he would have to claim he never intended for it to be a summary. By then (now) the vast public paying attention still believes it's a summary no matter what letters are exchanged between the AG and Congress. Mission accomplished.

I just heard a sensible sounding fellow calling in to Rush to say he thinks people are ready to move on with their lives and put the Mueller investigation behind 'em. Rush had been railing about the Clintons as the real crooks in all of this, so he asked the guy if he himself should stop talking about it.

The caller said something like, "Yessir. At this point it just seems like crowing after a victory."

I'm sure it wasn't staged at all.

Dissemble, deny, delay, declare it's time to move on. I'd say Barr is playing his part. I'd guess they're thinking that if they can stonewall another two weeks, they just might be in the clear.

IDK if Barr walking back his summary was on purpose. Maybe though. Leaving it out of his first letter would have had the same effect I imagine. Walking it back later decreases trust, and then blaming it on Nadler makes Barr look like a political hack. That is unfortunate.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a pretty cut and dry unforced error on Barr's part.

[DDD Dad 14,251]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You do realize it's entirely possible for both sides of that argument to be correct?

Yes, but one side's argument is based on speculation and the other's isn't.

[jimmyjazz 45,557]

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a pretty cut and dry unforced error on Barr's part.

More like an intentional walk.  Looks bad in the box score, but strategic nonetheless.

[Rimbo 25,779]

https://politics.theonion.com/mueller-kinda-miffed-that-barr-clearly-didn-t-read-his-1833722284 

Mueller Kinda Miffed That Barr Clearly Didn’t Read His Stuff Like He Said He Would

Spoiler

 

WASHINGTON—Irked that the attorney general’s brief summary of his meticulously written report reflected only a surface-level understanding of its contents, Special Counsel Robert Mueller told reporters Monday he was peeved that William Barr clearly didn’t read his stuff like he suggested he would. “I worked really hard on this thing for two years, put some great stuff in there, and as far as I can tell he just glanced over it briefly and tossed it aside,” said Mueller, who expressed irritation that Barr, despite assuring the former FBI director that he couldn’t wait to read his new work, had apparently not bothered to absorb the nuanced, comprehensive 300-page report before writing a cursory, four-page letter about it. “I mean, there was some pretty hard-hitting material in there—did he miss that completely? Either he skimmed through it really fast or he handed it off to an assistant without reading it all. Seriously, I put my heart and soul into those pages, and the best he can muster in a superficial response that almost entirely misses the point? What the hell?” At press time, Mueller was reportedly worried that maybe Barr flat-out hated his work and had offered the vague, bare-bones summary in order to spare the special counsel’s feelings.

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rimbo

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a pretty cut and dry unforced error on Barr's part.

You may be right, but why not just own the mistake rather than blaming Nadler? If Barr is willing to play politics with Congress over such an inconsequential mistake that he made, what other actions of his are purely political.

Then considering all of Barr’s public releases thus far fit squarely into the realm of politics, congressional oversight starts to sound better and better.

[triplehorn 2,664]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I know you know the feeling when an opponent starts picking at your letter.  "Nyah, nyah, you said it was a summary of the results of the investigation!  Snot!  Snot!"

 

Roma spoke to this above, as well as HS just now : the initial Barr letter has two audiences - 1) those who speak legalese and understand relevant rules and procedures, and 2) the "great unwashed snot-flingers" whose perceptions and understanding are prone to being steered for desired effect.  Barr is good at what he does because he can toe that line.  But make no mistake, he did a walk-back because of the red flags raised and backlash over the mass interpretation of his letter occurring which was "total EXONERATION!" and really nothing else to see according to his "summary of the results of the investigation." 

So much public interest also involves an understanding of what happened that was wrong, if not morally or ethically reprehensible, even if not criminal.  There has been so much serial lying.  The public needs the truth from Mueller to separate fact and fiction for our own sense of direction more so than we need or want perp walks.  I'm left feeling that Barr would have been perfectly happy had his letter put it all to rest, but knowing that that isn't possible, he chose to go ahead and make an indelible imprint on many minds well before anyone ever sees the Mueller report.  I'm pissed even though I think ultimately things will work out on paper the way they should.  It's the minds of a lot of people that got fucked with, however, regardless of what the paper ultimately says, that has me pissed.  Unfortunately, Barr's letter was damaging to initial public understanding.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

More like an intentional walk.  Looks bad in the box score, but strategic nonetheless.

Yeah, that's a better analogy. 

[Zavala 1,384]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just call Mueller in to publicly testify.  His investigation is complete.  He can brief the American public directly.

Great idea. I'd ask him what the fuck he found with Prevezon

https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/28/campaign-colluded-russians-2016-hillary-clintons/

Quote

Fusion GPS was hired in April 2016 by the Clinton campaign’s law firm to do opposition research against the Trump campaign after it became clear that Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee. The campaign expenditures to Fusion GPS were never disclosed in campaign finance reports.

At the same time, it was also working on behalf of Prevezon, a company owned by Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch Denis Katsyv, in the company’s battle with U.S. prosecutors over Magnitsky Act sanctions against the company. Shortly after Fusion was hired to work for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it retained the services of Steele and directed him to dig up dirt on connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. The series of reports and memoranda prepared and peddled by Steele collectively became known to the public as the so-called Steele dossier.

Nellie Ohr, wife of top DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was also hired by Fusion GPS to assist with its Russia-related anti-Trump research. And it was Ohr who later became the secret conduit between Steele and the FBI after Steele’s status as a confidential human source for the FBI was terminated when the bureau learned he had lied about his contacts with the news media.

Natasha Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney for Prevezon with whom Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson worked directly, just so happened to be responsible for setting up the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting that was touted as evidence that the Trump campaign was going out of its way to collude with corrupt Russian officials in order to take down Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskaya met with Simpson both before and after the meeting, although both claim that they never discussed that meeting, only the Prevezon matter.

However, information Veselnitskaya provided during the Trump Tower meeting — the “dirt” which was promised to the president’s oldest son — was actually produced by Fusion GPS, raising questions about the claims that Simpson and Veselnitskaya never discussed the Trump Tower meeting with each other. Veselnitskaya was indicted by federal authorities early this year for obstructing justice during the course of the same Prevezon litigation that she and Fusion GPS worked on together.

 

[RomaVicta 29,784]

47 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

IDK if Barr walking back his summary was on purpose. Maybe though. Leaving it out of his first letter would have had the same effect I imagine. Walking it back later decreases trust, and then blaming it on Nadler makes Barr look like a political hack. That is unfortunate.

Unless he is a hack.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

From reading Barr’s letters, you’d think he worked for the CIA or something.

___________ is a term for the actions of political warfare to influence the course of world events, in addition to collecting intelligence and producing a "politically correct" assessment of it...

___________ range "from media manipulations to special actions.

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Unless he is a hack.

 

Things are starting to make sense. 

DJT nominated him so that should be a red flag to start with.

Barr instigates his nomination with an 18 page memo that pushes obstruction theory as far in favor of DJT as possible. 

Barr, outside the established SC process, provides to the public his obstruction finding under the cloak of a Mueller report summary.

Barr decides to release select sentences from Mueller in same summary, which may or may not have been coordinated but was completely voluntary either way, triggering a big political win for DJT.

Now Barr is picking nits for political gain with Nadler.

[triplehorn 2,664]

HJC chair Nadler had his op-ep published by the NYT today:

America Is Done Waiting for the Mueller Report -  Someday, Trump will not be in office. Congress needs a full accounting of his misdeeds to ensure they don’t happen again.

 

Last Sunday, Attorney General William Barr sent us a letter summarizing what he says are the “principal conclusions” of the special counsel, Robert Mueller. The next day, together with five other committee chairmen, I wrote back to the attorney general, demanding that he provide us with the full Mueller report — not a summary, but the full report and all of the relevant evidence — by April 2.

For nearly two years, the country has waited to read the report. Over those many months, President Trump has raged against the institutions that make our democracy possible — among them, the free press, the courts and his own Department of Justice. When the special counsel indicted members of the president’s inner circle, his attacks got louder.

Before the formal investigation began, Mr. Trump fired his F.B.I. director. He later fired his attorney general. He reportedly attempted to fire the special counsel himself. Despite this profoundly unacceptable behavior, the special counsel persevered and wrote his report.

We — the members of the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives and the entire American public — are still waiting to see that report. We will not wait much longer. We have an obligation to read the full report, and the Department of Justice has an obligation to provide it, in its entirely, without delay. If the department is unwilling to produce the full report voluntarily, then we will do everything in our power to secure it for ourselves.

cont.  VVV

Spoiler

The entire reason for appointing the special counsel was to protect the investigation from political influence. By offering us his version of events in lieu of the report, the attorney general, a recent political appointee, undermines the work and the integrity of his department. He also denies the public the transparency it deserves. We require the full report — the special counsel’s words, not the attorney general’s summary or a redacted version.

We require the report, first, because Congress, not the attorney general, has a duty under the Constitution to determine whether wrongdoing has occurred. The special counsel declined to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” on the question of obstruction, but it is not the attorney general’s job to step in and substitute his judgment for the special counsel’s.

That responsibility falls to Congress — and specifically to the House Judiciary Committee — as it has in every similar investigation in modern history. The attorney general’s recent proposal to redact the special counsel’s report before we receive it is unprecedented. We require the evidence, not whatever remains after the report has been filtered by the president’s political appointee.

On its face, the attorney general’s letter raises more questions than it answers. He tells us, for instance, that he declined to charge the president with obstruction in part because there was no underlying crime to obstruct.

Did he discuss that conclusion with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who, while a federal prosecutor, routinely charged individuals with obstruction without charging the underlying crime? Did the attorney general forget that the special counsel indicted 37 other people, including the president’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager and former national security adviser, for various crimes, including conspiracy against the United States? Did he lose track of his own prosecutors, who effectively named the president as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Southern District of New York?

Second, we require the report because Congress has a role that is fundamentally different from that of the Department of Justice. The special counsel’s mandate was narrow: investigate allegedly criminal conduct stemming from links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Our job is to hold the president accountable any time he undermines the rule of law, and is not limited to his involvement with the Russian government during the campaign.

Whether or not the president could have been charged with a crime, even the attorney general acknowledges the existence of evidence that has so far been hidden from view. We have every reason to suspect that the unedited obstruction section of the Mueller report resembles the report that Congress received from the Watergate grand jury in 1974. That evidence showed that President Richard Nixon had attempted to obstruct justice. It did not recommend that the president should be prosecuted. It did not say the president should be impeached. It simply stated the evidence so that Congress could do its job.

Finally, we require the report because one day, one way or another, the country will move on from President Trump. We must make it harder for future presidents to behave this way. We need a full accounting of the president’s actions to do that work.

When the full scope of the president’s misconduct has been revealed, when his lies are debunked and his abuses have been laid bare, I believe that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will draft legislation to curb the worst of his offenses. Put another way: If President Trump’s behavior wasn’t criminal, then perhaps it should have been.

All solid points with enough pepper to hopefully get Barr to move faster than pond water.

The one sentence that really jumps out at me is: 

"Our job is to hold the president accountable any time he undermines the rule of law, and is not limited to his involvement with the Russian government during the campaign."

I think Nadler is focusing on the potential that Barr is parsing terms by limiting definition of "collusion" to "involvement with the Russian government," similar to the potential to parse the distinction between involvement in activities related to the Russian Internet Agency versus Guccifer 2.0/Wikileaks email drops - two very different platforms with differing interfaces with outsiders.  If Trump followed Russian sponsored activity and events and approved of Wikileaks stolen email drops by way of Roger Stone, that likely doesn't fall under Trump conspiring with the Russian government.  But, as one example, should we know of factual evidence Trump aided and abetted the Russian attack on our democracy in real time?  fuck yes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

29 minutes ago, Zavala said:

I'd ask him what the fuck he found with Prevezon

No kidding but not for those reasons laid out in that federalist article.  I’d want to know why the Prevezon Russian money laundering case was mysteriously settled for a fraction just after Trump fired all the federal prosecutors working on the case. 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

The rubber is starting to hit the road.  As I have contended, I think private parties will most expeditiously obtain disclosure of that material that can legally be disclosed.  https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/4_1_19_Datestamped_Application_GrandJuryMaterial_Mueller.pdf

However, this would only apply to the grand jury material, it doesn't seek to obtain intelligence/national security data or privacy related data. Also it seeks it in its entirety not as it is referenced in the report.  Of course release in its entirety would seem to obviate any report redaction. 

They state they have made a FOIA request but anticipate that it will be denied based on what Mueller said in the March 24 letter.  That may present some ripeness problems.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

11 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Things are starting to make sense. 

DJT nominated him so that should be a red flag to start with.

Makes sense. There should be congressional oversight into who the President appoints as AG!!!

Wait...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Can’t imagine why the Senate Republicans would confirm such an obvious stooge.

[Cheeseweasel 26,437]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can’t imagine why the Senate Republicans would confirm such an obvious stooge.

You should propose that the rules be changed. Obviously it's not fair.