You actually stated EO 13526 only applies to 25 yr old info.
Declassification by a non-originator applies only to information that meets that standard. You said "Barr can declassify the report", which he can't since he did not originate the classified information contained therein.
The information "owned" by the DOJ and FBI can be declassified by the AG.
Wrong. The foreign/counterintelligence information being "tagged and bagged" by Barr, Mueller and their teams was designated by the FBI/CIA/DNI and can only be classified/declassified by the originator or the Director of National Intelligence under 1326 and dozens of actual statutes (not EOs). Barr is not "classifying" anything, he is merely identifying previously classified information, redacting it and color coding it in the report.
Nice side-step on Barr's illegal classification of embarrassing information.
You nor I have no idea if Barr/Mueller are doing that, only your assumptions that it is being done. Let's see what comes out tomorrow before jumping to that conclusion.
McKeever wasn't a government official. He was a private citizen.
Agreed, but the language in McKeever is broader than just relating to historians, it relates to any disclosure under 6(e), set forth below.
Congress members are government officials and are covered by the 6(e)(3)(D) exemption. Again. McKeever does NOT apply to any exemption under 6(e). Government officials are exempt under 6(e).
Sorry, but that is just not the case. In McKeever, the Court cites In re Sealed Case, 250 F.3d 764, 768 (D.C. Cir. 2001) for the propositon that the exceptions in Rule 6(e) "must be narrowly construed," regardless of whether the disclosure is to a Government official. Id. 769. The Court in McKeever also cites United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46 n.6 (1992) (describing Rule 6(e)(3)(D), which "plac[es] strict controls on disclosure of `matters occurring before the grand jury,'" as one of those "few, clear rules which were carefully drafted and approved by this Court and by the Congress to ensure the integrity of the grand jury's functions, even when requested by Congress"); Sells Engineering, 463 U.S. at 425 ("In the absence of a clear indication in a statute or Rule, we must always be reluctant to conclude that a breach of this secrecy has been authorized by exception").
I read all of your posts doesn't change the fact that you challenged someone on the fact that this case would not yet be ripe only to later explain why it isn't ripe.
Snoofy has previously made the contention (like Gavaster) that Congress has an absolute right to immediately receive the unredacted report immediately, yet now says that Nadler is holding onto the subpoenas because the issue isn't ripe. I challenged his conflicting positions and then asked him why it now isn't ripe. Sorry that wasn't clear.
At the end of the day, there's certainly at least an argument to be made under 6(e)(3)(D).
And any AG who wanted to err on the side of transparency would make that argument and let a judge tell them they are wrong, rather than hide behind what they think a judge might do.
And as I have pointed out repeatedly, Barr has publically said that he is willing to work with Nadler on that issue.
You know that. I know that. Stop pretending otherwise.
I'm not, in fact, in the linked article, Barr again repeats exactly that:
"Barr has signaled his willingness to negotiate with Congress on what other information he could provide.
"I'm willing to work on some of these categories, including an appropriate release order," he said."