Mueller Report Poll

[bolverk 30,323]

Let's see what Surly thinks.

Edited March 30, 2019 by bolverk

[workswithseed 2,204]

I feel that a redacted and unredacted is the only legal way it should be released. It'll also cement that he is or isn't innocent.

Edited March 30, 2019 by workswithseed

[bolverk 30,323]

If y'all can think of other options, please discuss. These were just off the top of my head.

Thanks for participating.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The House Judiciary Committee is going to get a fully unredacted version.  That is all but certain.  They will go to the courts if they have to.  The House Judiciary Committee is the grand jury in impeachment proceedings so they’re pretty much entitled to all the evidence.

I want to see as much as possible but I wouldn’t want any sensitive sources compromised.  

[TwiceHorn 32,077]

I'm kinda thinking:  redacted to the public and "last," meaning time not particularly of the essence, month or two is fine.  Report with "national security/intelligence" info redacted to Judiciary Committees, but without grand jury evidence until a need is shown (that is, I'm thinking a discussion of it is ok, but the evidence itself, maybe not so much; also I'm not sure the JC needs or is qualified to receive the "national security" info, absent a specific showing).  The idea of giving grand jury evidence and testimony to Congress as a routine matter is frightening if you think about it for very long.  Granted, these are not routine circumstances, but I would prefer that call be made by a judge and if it's that important, should be an easy showing to make.

Edited March 30, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[bolverk 30,323]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm kinda thinking:  redacted to the public and "last," meaning time not particularly of the essence, month or two is fine.  Report with "national security/intelligence" info redacted to Judiciary Committees, but without grand jury evidence until a need is shown (that is, I'm thinking a discussion of it is ok, but the evidence itself, maybe not so much; also I'm not sure the JC needs or is qualified to receive the "national security" info, absent a specific showing).  The idea of giving grand jury evidence and testimony to Congress as a routine matter is frightening if you think about it for very long.  Granted, these are not routine circumstances, but I would prefer that call be made by a judge and if it's that important, should be an easy showing to make.

Well, if I could edit now, and phrase that into a few short phrases, I'd put that up there. Maybe consider the Gang of Eight option to be something a little more nuanced to say something along those lines.

[TwiceHorn 32,077]

8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Well, if I could edit now, and phrase that into a few short phrases, I'd put that up there. Maybe consider the Gang of Eight option to be something a little more nuanced to say something along those lines.

Yeah I know it's not easily condensed.  It's just a variation.  The Gang of Eight has the security clearance, but I am somewhat troubled by the issue of grand jury testimony and kind of have a hard time just saying "give it to them," which is not to say COngress shouldn't have something directly bearing on impeachment.  It seems the safer course to require a specific showing of specific evidence.

[bad_teammate 13,517]

So far, 3 fascists and 11 cucks

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I can’t see any poll options.

Are they unavailable on Tapa?

[bolverk 30,323]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I can’t see any poll options.

Are they unavailable on Tapa?

Pas d'idée, ma cherie.

If you can't see it on tapa, I'd suggest just using a browser.

As of right now, 17 vote for complete disclosure without redaction, 14 partial redaction based on some form of sharing the full report with specific congress critters that have security clearances, 4 for only a redacted version, and 0 for not releasing the report at all.

[workswithseed 2,204]

50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So far, 3 fascists and 11 cucks

That's funny, I only see one right here.

[JustBecause 112]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The House Judiciary Committee is going to get a fully unredacted version.  That is all but certain.  They will go to the courts if they have to.  The House Judiciary Committee is the grand jury in impeachment proceedings so they’re pretty much entitled to all the evidence.

I want to see as much as possible but I wouldn’t want any sensitive sources compromised.  

Which means that version will be leaked in its entirety.  Don’t even try to tell me it won’t.  It’ll be hours not days. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by JustBecause

[Tuco 5,093]

Cool.

[SDG 3,336]

It should be released in full but it won’t.  The public will get a heavily redacted version and members of Congress will larger version and spin the outcome depending on “team.”   

[David Dennison 19,536]

1 hour ago, SDG said:

It should be released in full but it won’t.  The public will get a heavily redacted version and members of Congress will larger version and spin the outcome depending on “team.”   

That would be a political win for Democrats.

[SDG 3,336]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That would be a political win for Democrats.

I don’t disagree but it really depends on which news network you frequent....  

ultimately my hope is RM testifies to Congress in an open door forum and puts this whole thing to bed (i’m not concerned about the results because I’m not a pro team guy). We as a country have a shit ton of issues that our elected officials should be focusing on... 

[RPM 26,623]

I'm sure there's intel info in there that doesn't need exposed to the general public. I don't have a problem with those with the proper clearance seeing it. Sunlight disinfects.

[Mdhorn 6,166]

:Feel like there's more of a national security threat with a redacted version since the POTUS is off his hinges. 

[TwiceHorn 32,077]

21 hours ago, JustBecause said:

Which means that version will be leaked in its entirety.  Don’t even try to tell me it won’t.  It’ll be hours not days. 

Yeah, this.  Which has pros (disclosure) and cons (disclosure).  If they release "national security" information, they could be prosecuted.  I trust the Intel committees with that information, I guess, but I don't think they have the wherewithal to deal with the "impeachment" aspects for lack of a better term.