That’ll earn you a warning, JohnT. You should know better than this.
Hence the subpoena. No one disagrees some redactions are necessary before releasing to the pubic. Barr seems to think it’s his job to redact before releasing it to Congress. See the difference?
OK, so I mimic the un-warned post #338.
I don’t believe you, Ditka.
This bears repeating just in case anyone is, for some reason, confused.
I don’t think you and Airbeck are on the same page here:
Anyways, backing up for a moment, earlier you said:
Where does that obligation come from? Not snarky, just a serious question for my own edification. IANAL, but I remember some earlier discussion on this subject and it was asserted that Barr could literally toss the report in a drawer and leave it there if he wanted.
I understand what the assertion is based on, re the change in the applicable Special Counsel rules and a very narrow, gratuitous interpretation of them. However, the argument (specious at best) is a complete fail in that it utterly disregards Congress’s constitutional duties to act as an oversight check on the Executive and to act to protect our national security. This is fundamental to our system of government.
For these reasons, Congress must see the full unredacted report prepared by Mueller. That was the entire point of the investigation. The Constitution will, uhh, trump DOJ rules every time in a court of law – and that’s why Barr is in the wrong.
He knows it, too. It’s why he walked back with his “summary that’s not a summary.” If his 3 1/2 page letter is found to be in general disagreement with what the full, unredacted report shows, then that’s evidence of obstruction. Pretty serious obstruction.
If you can bifurcate the partisanship taint from this undertaking, it all becomes extremely clear. Unfortunately, the Trump team taints everything with partisanship, eager to make a false claim that there is some partisan basis for congressional oversight on the Executive. There isn’t. It’s their job.
It’s very sad when Congress doing their job is at total loggerheads with exonerating a president of any wrongdoing, but that appears to be the case here.
The issue of redaction as regards the public is a different matter, but we’re not there yet.
Also, you might be well served to learn the difference between the term, “collusion,” which is simply a way to refer to some level of coordination between Team Trump and the Russians, v. “conspiracy,” which is a crime requiring very particular elements to be met in order to be charged. It is not necessary for a president to commit a crime in order to be impeached. Many citizens would find coordination – rising to the level of the term, “collusion” – sufficient to consider impeachment proceedings, if that concern is addressed in Mueller’s report. I’m pretty sure it is.
This is also what distinguishes this situation from the pathetically laughable Barr assertion that he doesn’t want to end up as the next “James Comey.” By Barr’s own definition, congressional oversight of the Executive is the only check on the Executive’s power. It is therefore an entirely different matter than Comey violating a long-standing DOJ rule that the FBI/DOJ doesn’t speak about charges that won’t be brought. Barr has already asserted that charges cannot be brought against the executive due to the DOJ rule precluding it. He can’t then equally assert that he is withholding information because a crime will not be charged.
He must give the information over to the body tasked with determining if the executive should be impeached, as it is the only remedy he recognizes under the rule of law. Otherwise, he is simply saying that a president is above the law – no matter what unethical, immoral or criminal means that president may have employed to gain the office.
Missed the edit window: IANAL, either.
I don’t believe that. The part you quoted is what, in my opinion, HurricaneDitka believes. Sorry for the confusion.
If you (or anybody else) have any genuine, good-faith confusion about why it’s a big deal to wait several weeks before the Mueller report is made available to representatives of the general public, consider that you have just attempted to draw a distinction between “the Meuller investigation” and the report written by Mueller about the investigation.
For those of us who are willing and capable of seeing the obviously-objectively-true fact that we don’t know what the results of the Mueller investigation are yet, more time to try to push that distinction is a problem.
Unless you think you aren’t drawing a distinction, but usually people don’t compare an apple to the same apple.
I was drawing a comparison between assertions like “Ultimately, there will be only one narrative - the truth - and it’s not going to be one you will like” and all the confident predictions along the lines that President Trump was going to be frog-marched from the White House in handcuffs.
I have very little doubt that you understand the point I’m making already, but OK.
Those “confident predictions” you’re comparing that assertion to. They were proven wrong, were they? When did that happen?
Don’t give up hope yet. The truth may not come out, and even if it does, you can’t be forced to believe it.
Since you’ve quoted me, I would like to clarify that I’m not of the view that the contents of the Mueller Report will lead to President Trump being “frog-marched from the White House in handcuffs”. I consider the modern Republican Party to be too ethically defunct and morally debased to consider supporting the impeachment of a President from their party for matters relating to obstruction of justice or non-criminal collusion with Russia.
Man, this “full exoneration” story is just falling apart. I mean, whoda thunk a pack of liars would lie?
Much like the Benghazi investigations.
Well, of course they lied, but those lies wil now forever be the Real Facts™.
Recall November 2000 when news networds, beginning with Fox, called Florida for Bush? For many millions of Americans, that call became an immutable fact. All subsequent events in that story were just the sore loser fighting the Real Facts™.
Similarly, many millions of Americans — including millions who thought him guilty — now know that Mueller exonerated Trump. Mueller himself may contradict this, but it won’t matter — that will just be Mueller lying about his own Report. The Real Facts™ have been laid out already. Fox viewers obviously will never hear differently, but even CNN viewers, who’ve already heard the Real Facts™, will think CNN is lying again if Mueller contradicts what they already “know” about the Mueller Report.
Darn, it looks like Trump is attacking the people who just exonerated him. And after all that work by the exonerators!
Ditka, is this the actions of an innocent man? Oh, don’t bother. Post 338.