Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, April 15, 2019

The most consequential editing process in the country is almost over. Lawyers from the Justice Department and the special counsel's office have each gone word by word, sentence by sentence through the nearly 400-page confidential report that Robert S. Mueller III completed last month, using color coding to conceal classified or other protected information.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The report will never be released, it can be released without redactions, it should only take a couple of days, we will have no way of knowing what categories were redacted, a summary was done that could be immediately released, Barr will never work with Congress on releasing Grand Jury information, etc.

-The perpetually wrong hyperventilating Left

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 01:38 PM | Reply


I read one news article (can't track it down again, as I've been visiting a lot of sites today) that said each redaction will have an explanation of why it was redacted, in addition to the color-coding.

If that is the case, then it would be quite helpful in understanding the reasons for the redactions.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-04-15 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What report?

-The perpetually Trumpish Right

Turns out the Attorney General of the United States next job is to front and defend the spin he released as the main talking head in the media.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2019-04-15 01:52 PM | Reply

#3

Which is why Mueller's office is working with the AG on the redactions, right?

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 01:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The report will never be released,

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019

You are so wrong.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 01:55 PM | Reply

Which is why Mueller's office is working with the AG on the redactions

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at

We'll get Mueller under oath to find out how much he's been involved.

If you don't mind.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As many of us have repeatedly pointed out, none of the talking points that the DR Left have been screaming over the past several weeks are even remotely correct, and once the report is released it will be interesting to see where the Left's Narrative shifts to keep The Resistance hyperventilating over the next fauxrage.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There's no reason Congress or responsible power therein can't have an un-redacted Report. Still-no-reason.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 01:58 PM | Reply

#6

It's already planned, but by all means keep polishing those handcuffs.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 01:58 PM | Reply

#5

You obviously didn't understand my #1, it is and will be released to the fullest extent of the law, which is what I have been saying all along, I was quoting you and the rest of the DRtards in my attribution in that post.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 01:59 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter

We wouldn't have to work this hard, and you wouldn't have to flack this hard, if Donald Trump weren't already a self-evident criminal.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#6

Other than a half dozen laws that I have repeatedly cited and linked to, but those obviously don't matter to you.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You obviously didn't understand

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter

I understand fully. Why skip over the well-known and obvious fact there is a Judge who can order it released without redactions?

Rhetorical question. You're more interested in insulting people interested in the truth than knowing the truth yourself.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11

I honestly fear for your mental well being when this report comes out and your prison fantasies are dashed.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:02 PM | Reply

Why skip over the well-known and obvious fact there is a Judge who can order it released without redactions?

You obviously missed the numerous threads that cited recent caselaw that discussed how and under what circumstances a Judge can make that order, along with the additional part of the thread that said the following"

"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."

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:04 PM | Reply

Barr has been asked, before Congress and under oath, if he would ask a Judge to release the full report. He said no.

He also said, under oath, that other parties-including Congress-could ask that same Judge for that same favor.

Why accuse other people of arm-flapping when its you who acts like the chicken?

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:04 PM | Reply

#13

I have been saying from the start, let's see what the report says. Insulting you bloviating idiots who run in circles every time something is posted that fits the Narrative that you so desperately want to believe is merely a bonus.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You obviously missed the numerous threads

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at

The full Mueller Report is going to be leaked. It's inevitable. Better to do it legally but the stakes are too high for the country not to have it.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:06 PM | Reply

I have been saying from the start, let's see what the report says

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter

Fine. Let's see what the Full Report says.

No problem, Kemosabe.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:07 PM | Reply

He said no.

No, what is said was "I have no plans on doing that at this time."

Big difference, especially since he also said "I'm willing to work on some of these categories, including an appropriate release order," when asked about releasing the redacted parts to Congress.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:07 PM | Reply

The full Mueller Report is going to be leaked. It's inevitable.

And whoever does that will go to prison for a loooooong time.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:08 PM | Reply

'No, what is (he) said was "I have no plans on doing that at this time."

God, you really are a flack.

NOW is when it's needed. Or at least a few months before November, 2020.

No one wants to play your game.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And whoever does that will go to prison for a loooooong time.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019

This is all you've got.

Maybe they will go to jail.

After they leak it.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:10 PM | Reply

Let's see what the Full Report says.

You and I will never see the Full Report, Kemosabe, but at the end of the day, my guess is that the Gang of Eight will see most if not all of it, since they are cleared from most of that information.

Deal with it.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:10 PM | Reply

Zed, you have put all your chips in the Collusion basket only to find that it is empty. Don't worry, after the report is released on Thursday you will be told something else to be fauxraged about.

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:12 PM | Reply

NOW is when it's needed.

So sorry that the DOJ isn't accommodating your arbitrary deadline.

Or at least a few months before November, 2020.

As I said earlier, my guess is that the Gang of Eight will see most, if not all of it, by this Summer.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:14 PM | Reply

"I have been saying from the start, let's see what the report says."
--RightOCenter

"You and I will never see the Full Report"
--also RightOCenter

So you've been saying something you know won't happen.

Why?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-15 02:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- I have been saying from the start, let's see what the report says.

You have been repeating Barr's spin from the start.

@eliehonig
Barr quotes Mueller: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Barr omitted first part of that sentence. Want to bet it starts with "Although"?

www.huffpost.com

thehill.com

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2019-04-15 02:27 PM | Reply

#27

Because I happen to understand how the law works relating to FRCP 6(e).

Any other stupid questions?

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 02:30 PM | Reply

Zed, you have put all your chips in the Collusion basket

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter

I don't know why you say that. I've been just as interested in Trump money-laundering and tax evasion.

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:49 PM | Reply

I've been just as interested in Trump money-laundering and tax evasion.

#30 | POSTED BY ZED

If Trump goes down (and he might) this will likely be the cause.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-15 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As I said earlier, my guess is that the Gang of Eight will see most, if not all of it, by this Summer.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter

You guess? Why would anyone have to guess?

The less that's given for study the more doubt there will be.

The more doubt there is, the more rightly unsettled the country is.

Honesty is the cure for this. But this is Donald Trump and his Running Dogs.

Constitutional Crisis.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:53 PM | Reply

So sorry that the DOJ isn't accommodating your arbitrary deadline.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at

The question is who the DOJ is accommodating.

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 02:55 PM | Reply

"Because I happen to understand how the law works relating to FRCP 6(e)."

You do?

Can members of Congress see the unredacted report in confidence, yes or no.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-15 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#34

No they can't, and don't trot out those old arguments that it was OK with the Starr Report so it is okay now. Try this on for size:

McKeever v. Barr, a ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 5, rejects the argument that federal judges can release grand jury evidence whenever they think it's in the public interest. The holding may be bad news for those in Congress who want to see such evidence from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report.

The D.C. Circuit says that judges cannot go beyond the provisions expressly set forth in Rule 6(e).

In the current battle over the Mueller report and evidence, the House Judiciary Committee wants "access to materials the [Justice] Department deems covered by Rule 6(e)," according to a statement by Chair Jerrold Nadler. If McKeever had come out the other way, and recognized the existence of inherent authority to go beyond 6(e), Congress might have argued for release of the evidence on public-interest grounds, as part of its oversight power. But McKeever indicates that Congress probably needs to invoke the "judicial proceeding" exception if it wants grand jury evidence. While impeachment is a judicial proceeding, congressional oversight is not, according to a D.C. district court case from 1981 -- and nothing in McKeever suggests otherwise.

D.C. Circuit's Lockdown on Grand Jury Material May Hinder Congress and Historians

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 03:31 PM | Reply

No they can't

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter

If this is true, then we'll see the Leak much sooner than later.

#36 | Posted by Zed at 2019-04-15 03:52 PM | Reply

#36

Keep polishing those cuffs if it helps you maintain your tenuous hold on your sanity in these trying times...

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-15 07:16 PM | Reply


@#30 ... I've been just as interested in Trump money-laundering and tax evasion. ...

If i remember correctly, you've been bringing up the money-laundering exposure for many months. It was your early comments on the topic that piqued my interest in that area.

#38 | Posted by lamplighter at 2019-04-15 09:24 PM | Reply

#35 ROC

The "who" matters.

Intellegeince Reform and Terrorism Act of 2004... I'll abbreviate.

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 added another exception, allowing an attorney for the government to disclose any grand jury matter...to "any appropriate federal... government official..."

138 - FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(3)(D)

Yada, yada, "appropriate" "threat" "response" and any other cockamamie BS you want to add. Twist it any way you like and the IRTA '04 allows the AG(William Barr) to share the Grand Jury material(Muller's FULL report) to any Federal official (Congress) when attempting to respond to threats foreign and domestic (Russian interference in the election)

M'kay?

#39 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-15 11:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I should add..

McKeever was a private citizen who met no exceptions under 6(e).

Congress does. Exception 6(e)(3)(D).

#40 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-15 11:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

P.S.S. - Congress deciding wether or not to impeach a sitting President as a potential foreign agent as regards the investigation into Russian interference with our elections counts as a "response".

#41 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-15 11:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You and I will never see the Full Report, Kemosabe, but at the end of the day, my guess is that the Gang of Eight will see most if not all of it, since they are cleared from most of that information.
Deal with it.

#24 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Why have they not seen it already? As you said, they are cleared for it.

Why does Barr not go ahead and release the summaries, as Mueller specifically wrote the report so that they could be released to the public?

Why was Barr so quick to publicly exonerate Trump when he KNEW that he would be (according to you) unable to release the report for so long?

Barr (and Trump) are obviously playing politics with this report, and you are goose-stepping to their beat by trying to obfuscate from that fact with some legal BS. Yes... you are right that they are using every legal trick in the book to delay the release of the report. But the fact remains that they ARE using those tricks when they could have EASILY released (at least parts of it) sooner and with much less hassle.

If there is, as you claim so vociferously, nothing of substance in the report, then why are they (and you) contorting themselves so much to try to delay it coming out?

The closer the report comes to being released, the more frenetic you are becoming. It is kinda fun to watch.

#42 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-04-16 09:57 AM | Reply

Putin's redactions will be in red, Trump's redactions will be in orange. Barr's redactions should be in brown to match his nose.

#43 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2019-04-16 11:52 AM | Reply

The full Mueller Report is going to be leaked. It's inevitable. Better to do it legally but the stakes are too high for the country not to have it.

#18 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-04-15 02:06 PM | FLAG:

I thought for the last two years you have told us to let Mueller do his job and accept the outcome? I know you want to keep moving the goal posts until you can find something but it ain't coming.

#44 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-04-16 11:58 AM | Reply

"I know you want to keep moving the goal posts..."

Tell us about it:

No Russia.
Yes, Russia, but no collusion.
No collusion, because we're inept.
Sure we met, but so what?
Sure we lied about it...what are you going to do?
Collusion isn't really a crime.

So are those goalposts heavy, when you have to carry them that far, that fast?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-04-16 12:05 PM | Reply

I thought for the last two years you have told us to let Mueller do his job and accept the outcome?

We don't know the precise outcome without the full report, you absolute dolt.

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 12:15 PM | Reply

We don't know the precise outcome without the full report...

#46 | POSTED BY JOE

Thursday.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-16 12:19 PM | Reply

That's not a "full report," genius.

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 12:23 PM | Reply

Of course it's redacted.

Barr removed anything which could possibly indicate Trump.

Barr has single handily made the entire investigation worthless.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-04-16 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By law they can't release "full report", genius.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-16 12:31 PM | Reply

By law they absolutely can ask for permission to do so, which Barr has conveniently failed and refused to do, genius.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 12:39 PM | Reply

RoC already eviscerated that talking point with relevant statutes and precedent, genius.

Believe it or not, I do get the consternation over redacting parts of the report.

I understand the belief that Barr will redact anything damaging to Trump.

I just think you are all jumping the gun on this.

Wait for the report to be released, then go -------.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-16 12:51 PM | Reply

He didn't "eviscerate" anything, genius.

I understand the belief that Barr will redact anything damaging to Trump. I just think you are all jumping the gun on this. Wait for the report to be released, then go -------.

Sonce we won't know what any of the redactions say, what is the difference between objecting to Barr's role in the process today versus Thursday?

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 12:54 PM | Reply

Sonce we won't know what any of the redactions say, what is the difference between objecting to Barr's role in the process today versus Thursday?

#53 | POSTED BY JOE

It would have been helpful if Mueller had provided a report that was fit for full public consumption. But he didn't do that.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-16 01:30 PM | Reply

It would have been helpful if Mueller had provided a report that was fit for full public consumption. But he didn't do that.
#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

But, he did provide a repost that was fit for full public consumption, Dodo.

Barr still felt it incriminated Trump too much.

Trump thanks god every day he's got the support of morons like you to carry him through his presidency.

#55 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-04-16 01:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#54 That's not a response to my question, but your criticism of Mueller is noted.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 01:42 PM | Reply

Joe,

Like I said, I get the consternation of Barr handling the redacting.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-16 01:51 PM | Reply

RoC already eviscerated that talking point with relevant statutes and precedent, genius.
#52 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No. He didn't.

The DC Circuit Court is only one of the Circuit Courts. Other circuits have ruled differently in the past.

There are exceptions written into law.

And the DC Circuit Court case involved a private citizen asking for unredacted portions, not a Congressional body which falls under exceptions to both USC and US Court Rules.

RoC is aware of this but didn't mention it for some odd reason... hmmm....

#58 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-04-16 03:03 PM | Reply

The DC Circuit Court is only one of the Circuit Courts. Other circuits have ruled differently in the past.

But the DC Circuit is the circuit that...wait for it...DC is in, which is the Court that will rule on any request from Congress.

There are exceptions written into law.

Yes, and releasing the GJ testimony isn't one of them unless impeachment proceeding are underway.

And the DC Circuit Court case involved a private citizen asking for unredacted portions, not a Congressional body which falls under exceptions to both USC and US Court Rules.

Wrong, for the reasons that I mentioned above in #35. I'm not sure where you and Gavaster are getting this latest talking point about the exception in FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(3)(D), since you are leaving one important element out: the particular GJ testimony in question is limited to information "involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. §401a3003), or foreign intelligence information" or information relating to a foreign attack "for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities", all of which the FBI has already agreed to brief the Gang of 8 on, so it doesn't qualify for the omnibus release that you are advocating.

RoC is aware of this but didn't mention it for some odd reason... hmmm....

That "odd" reason is that it isn't an applicable exception under McKeever.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 03:28 PM | Reply

"all of which the FBI has already agreed to brief the Gang of 8 on, so it doesn't qualify for the omnibus release that you are advocating."

That doesn't follow.
The fact that the FBI already agreed to something doesn't affect the statute.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-16 03:34 PM | Reply

The FBI has already agreed to brief the Gang of 8 on all intelligence and counter-intelligence information contained in the report, GJ or otherwise, so the disclosure to "appropriate federal personnel" prong is covered.

#42

Just saw this...reading comprehension isn't your strong suit obviously.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 03:40 PM | Reply

"so the disclosure to "appropriate federal personnel" prong is covered."

No, that's not how it works.

The statute doesn't go out of force because something happened.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-16 03:51 PM | Reply

Of course it's redacted.
Barr removed anything which could possibly indicate Trump.
Barr has single handily made the entire investigation worthless.
#49 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-04-16 12:26 PM | FLAG:

Report is not even out yet but the idiots on the left already have their talking point marching orders. Why even release it? It doesn't even matter what it says. Something like a grand jury investigation part will be redacted and morons like Clownshart and Joe will come a running saying that was the part that proves that Hillary should have won. Can't wait for this s show.

#63 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-04-16 04:08 PM | Reply

Why are rightwingers so --------- scared of having the full report released? Why?

#64 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-04-16 04:13 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

It's sad you're still bringing up Hillary.

#65 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-04-16 04:17 PM | Reply

Why are rightwingers so --------- scared of having the full report released? Why?

#64 | POSTED BY MODER8

By law, the full report can't be released.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-16 04:31 PM | Reply

"By law, the full report can't be released."

To us, no.
To Congress, of course it can.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-16 04:33 PM | Reply

To Congress, of course it can.

#67 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

My understanding is that it can only be released to congressmen with the appropriate level of clearance - the Gang of 8.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-16 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, that's not how it works.
The statute doesn't go out of force because something happened.

#62 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-04-16 03:51 PM

No, but with the FBI briefing the Congressional Leadership on Intelligence information that they have the proper security clearances to hear, any argument that information should be released to all of Congress is greatly diminished.

Why are rightwingers so --------- scared of having the full report released? Why?

#64 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2019-04-16 04:13 PM

Does recognizing legal limitations to its full release equate to "fear" in your mind? You are a lawyer, after all, would you recommend to anyone in the DOJ to ignore criminal penalties under FRCrimP (6)(e) to release the full report? I certainly wouldn't.

I mean, that would be more work for you, but would also be a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility, at the very least, on your part.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 04:39 PM | Reply

#68

That is correct, as has been noted extensively in the legal press.

#70 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 04:40 PM | Reply

The public won't get to see the full Mueller report, but here's a potential check to make sure we are seeing as much as possible:

Zoe Tillman @ZoeTillman (Reporter covering courts and justice for @BuzzFeedNews)

A judge just heard args in BuzzFeed and @JasonLeopold's FOIA request for the Mueller report. Judge denied request for an injunction to have the report produced under FOIA by 4/18 -- judge wants to wait and see what gets released by AG Barr on Thursday and go from there

But: The judge indicated he wants to move on the FOIA side of this, which involves litigating redactions, quickly. He said the AG had "created an environment" that caused a sign. part of the American public to question whether there's been full transparency re: the Mueller report

The judge told the government that it should start thinking about how he can assess whether they've properly withheld information under FOIA. This could mean "in camera" inspection by the judge -- aka, the judge gets to read what's behind the redaction bars

The judge -- US District Judge Reggie Walton in DC -- said he hoped the government is "going to be as transparent as it can be" in what it releases re: the Mueller report, although he was mindful of the need to protect grand jury info/info about ongoing investigations

twitter.com

#71 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-04-16 04:49 PM | Reply

Judge in FOIA case says he may want to review DOJ redactions of Mueller report after release

Federal District Judge Reggie Walton expressed uncertainty about the redactions Attorney General William Barr is making to special counsel Robert Mueller's report and suggested he may want to review the Justice Department's redactions for himself once versions of it are made public.

"Obviously there is a real concern as to whether there is full transparency," Walton said at a Tuesday court hearing in Washington about a request from BuzzFeed News to have the Justice Department release the report quickly under the Freedom of Information Act. "The attorney general has created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned" about the redactions.

www.cnn.com

#72 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-04-16 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gal-

I saw that, and while a Judge's review in camera of redactions certainly falls within FRCrimP 6(e) exceptions, I am not sure how any decision that he makes regarding transparency falls within the recent ruling on McKeever (I am not trying to be evasive or snarky, I just don't know) so am not sure what, if anything, he can do if he finds that it was overredacted.

He could tell the DOJ and FOIA counsel from Buzz Feed in chambers that was his conclusion, but I don't know where they go from there given that it is not an official ruling.

#73 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 05:33 PM | Reply

If any judge reviews in camera and accepts the redactions is just another collaborator.

That is what people will accuse the judge.

Upholding the redactions because of the law will be Trump-protecting action.

#74 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-04-16 05:56 PM | Reply

The FBI has already agreed to brief the Gang of 8 on all intelligence and counter-intelligence information contained in the report, GJ or otherwise, so the disclosure to "appropriate federal personnel" prong is covered.

Not if another covered Congressional employee wants to see it.

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 06:17 PM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

McKeever! Squirrel!!

Great twist. Try again though. I'll repeat, abbreviated so you can understand.

Barr can release Muller's report to Congress unredacted.

#76 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-16 07:43 PM | Reply

#76

Nope.

#77 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 07:46 PM | Reply

I will type slowly so you understand:

If what you so fervently want to believe was true, why then is Rep. Nadler sitting on the subpoenas waiting to see the extent of the redactions? Why do you think that Speaker Pelosi is saying that Congress has to be patient and wait to see the redacted report? Why do you think that Mueller is working with Barr on the redactions themselves if Congress was legally entitled to the unredacted report?

Hint: It's not because they know that Congress is legally entitled to the unredacted report.

#78 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 08:00 PM | Reply

"why then is Rep. Nadler sitting on the subpoenas waiting to see the extent of the redactions?"

Ripeness.

Act like you're a better lawyer than this, please.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-16 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And why isn't it ripe yet if they were already legally entitled to the report?

(Congrats on learning a legal term today!)

#80 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 08:21 PM | Reply

And why isn't it ripe yet if they were already legally entitled to the report?

You know the answer to that. You're just hoping he'll answer in a way that gives you something to pounce on.

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 08:25 PM | Reply

I will make it easy for you Snoofy: It isn't ripe yet because Nadler is waiting to see if the redactions exceed what the DOJ is legally required to redact. If they were not legally required to redact the report and it could be released to Congress unredacted, then Nadler would have issued those subpoenas on April 2 at 5:01 p.m. when his deadline passed.

#82 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 08:25 PM | Reply

#77

Yup. Oh, are you worried about classified info?

EO 13526. Barr can declassify the report. He won't, Trump wouldn't allow, and all the GOP sheep will continue to shake their heads and sigh. "Can't be done. National Security."

#83 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-16 08:25 PM | Reply

#81

Wrong, again.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 08:26 PM | Reply

So you don't know the answer? You're dumber than i gave you credit for.

#85 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 08:28 PM | Reply

#83

LOL, EO 13526 only applies to information over 25 years old.

Besides, declassification has no effect on GJ information under FRCrimP 6(e).

#86 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 08:29 PM | Reply

#85

Really, your reading comprehension is worse than I gave you credit for if you didn't understand #82.

Now say good night and run away...

#87 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 08:30 PM | Reply

I didn't read your 182 because it was addressed to someone else in the first line. My point stands - why did you question Snoofy's assertion that the dispute isn't ripe in #80 when you clearly know why it isn't? Just playing law professor in your spare time?

#88 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 08:35 PM | Reply

#88

I didn't read your 182 because it was addressed to someone else in the first line.

Which is silly, since the immediately prior post you are taking me to task for not providing Snoofy with the answer, which I did in #82 (at the same time you posted #81), which I was addressing in #84, yet you take me to task for "not" answering, which I already did.

I hope that made sense to you, because I had to re-read it a couple of times to make sure it made sense to me.

#89 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 09:19 PM | Reply

No matter what is disclosed and redacted, it will never be enough to sate the bloodthirsty "muh russia" conspiracy theorists. This is THE conspiracy theory - the most widely covered, heavily funded, with literal intelligence agency participation - that has ever existed. These people will never cease to make asses of themselves grasping at smoke and mirrors; this will in itself feed into the cogdis they experience and thereby furnish more "evidence" for collusion. Russiagaters would deserve a scrap of pity, were they not so abysmally pathetic.

#90 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-04-16 10:58 PM | Reply

"you are taking me to task for not providing Snoofy with the answer"

Why would I need an answer, when I gave the answer, which was ripeness?

Then you repeated it back to me, like you were explaining it to me.

We're explaining it to you.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-16 11:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We're explaining it to you.

Hardly, but whatever makes you feel better about your conflicting positions.

#92 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-16 11:26 PM | Reply

#86 ROC

Whoops. Wrong again.

EO 13526:
Part 1 - Original Classification
Part 2 - Derivative Classification
Part 3 - Declassification and Downgrading
Part 4 - Safeguarding
Part 5 - Implementation and Review
Part 6- General Provisions

Do you always just make ---- up?

I particularly like this part...

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall
information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail
to be declassified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

#93 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-16 11:30 PM | Reply

#86 ROC

As already previously cited, GJ info can be released to Congress under FRCrimP 6(e)(3)(D) exemption. So unless you're claiming the GJ info must be redacted for classification purposes you need to find something new, the McKeever case doesn't apply.

And as my #83 comment was to head you off for claiming classification I provided you with the current EO which allows the AG, Barr, to declassify the information and provide the report to Congress unredacted.

#94 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-16 11:38 PM | Reply

I don't know the validity of this as it's above my paygrade:

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

§6(e)(3)(D) expressly allows any member of Mueller's team as an "attorney for the government" to "disclose any grand-jury matter involving ... a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power ... to any appropriate federal ... government official." Q.E.D.

Even if Mueller's team doesn't want to take this path, @RepJerryNadler can ask a court to release all grand jury material to the House Judiciary Committee on the ground that his investigation is "preliminary to" a "judicial inquiry" in the form of a Senate impeachment trial.

#95 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-04-16 11:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#95 Gal

Agreed. And as per Nadler...

"We're just making every effort to show the court that we're making every effort to reach an accommodation," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Tuesday. "Because that strengthens the case for enforcement of the subpoena."

#96 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-16 11:54 PM | Reply

Do you always just make ---- up?
I particularly like this part...
Sec. 1.7.

Do you continually move the goalposts?

You were talking about this: Barr can declassify the report.

The only way that a non-originator or non DNI can declassify foreign intelligence information, as I point out, is through automatic declassification, which takes 25 years.

Now you are talking about the reasons for classification under Section 1, and that has no bearing on Grand Jury information, which is covered exclusively by FRCrimP 6(e), which is not classified intelligence information. Moreover, the originator of the classification is not the DOJ, but Military Intelligence, the NSA or the CIA.

Try again.

#97 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-17 12:00 AM | Reply

GJ info can be released to Congress under FRCrimP 6(e)(3)(D) exemption.

Caselaw says you and your talking points provider are wrong.

#98 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-17 12:01 AM | Reply

#95

I understand that is Nadler's position and it was the argument that the dissenter in McKeever took, but unless a higher court than McKeever overrules that decision, it controls.

#99 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-17 12:03 AM | Reply

#97 - ROC

Wrong again. Great attempt at redirect though. You actually stated EO 13526 only applies to 25 yr old info. You were wrong so you moved on to non-originators, but your new goal post placement doesn't apply in this case. We're talking about a DOJ investigation. Unless otherwise revoked, Clinton gave the AG OCA status as well as a host of others. fas.org The information "owned" by the DOJ and FBI can be declassified by the AG.

Nice side-step on Barr's illegal classification of embarrassing information. Make it about goal posts instead of Barr's illegality. You should take SHS's place when she resigns.

#99 - ROC
For the uptrenth effin time. McKeever wasn't a government official. He was a private citizen. 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). Jeez.

#100 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-17 02:39 AM | Reply

#89 That's true, but whether 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.

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. You know that. I know that. Stop pretending otherwise.

#101 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-17 05:44 AM | Reply

I'm no attorney and I won't try to pretend to be one. I'm just a citizen who wants our President and Congress to tell us the real truth about any and all crimes that may have been committed by the Trump administration and quit hiding behind legal technicalities. He looks more guilty by the day and therefore I assume he is and so should everyone else as long as this coverup continues. Oh, and Barr should go to prison.

#102 | Posted by danni at 2019-04-17 07:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By law they absolutely can ask for permission to do so, which Barr has conveniently failed and refused to do, genius.
#51 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-16 12:39 PM

That is a lie. Barr has not refused to ask permission to release the grand jury information. Or please prove yourself not a liar and me wrong by quoting his refusal?

#103 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-04-17 09:36 AM | Reply

The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report

Legislators have a responsibility to police obstruction of justice, according to the Constitution.

www.politico.com

#104 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-04-17 09:38 AM | Reply

Barr has not refused to ask permission to release the grand jury information

He's been asked to do it, and he's not done it, so he's refused to do it.

Go play wordgames with someone who cares, loser.

#105 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-17 09:43 AM | Reply

He's been asked to do it - #105 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-17 09:43 AM
Citation?

#106 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-04-17 10:17 AM | Reply

Oh, and Barr should go to prison.

#102 | POSTED BY DANNI

For what?

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-17 10:25 AM | Reply

Sigh...

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").

#101

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).

Agreed.

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."

#108 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-17 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And as I have pointed out repeatedly, Barr has publically said that he is willing to work with Nadler on that issue.

He doesn't need to work with Nadler on it. He could have had a motion ready to file on Day 1 and let the judge tell him where he overstepped his bounds. Instead he's stalling, and you're playing defense for him.

#109 | Posted by JOE at 2019-04-17 01:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

He doesn't need to work with Nadler on it.

Yes he does, because they have to review the types of redactions that he would be willing to stipulate to release.

He could have had a motion ready to file on Day 1 and let the judge tell him where he overstepped his bounds.

As I have repeatedly said, if you want to succeed on a release motion under FRCrimP 6(e) you have to specify the exact testimony/evidence that you want to release so the Judge can review it in camera and the appropriate exception that you seek to release it under, you can't just walk into court and ask the Judge to release the entire report, which is the only thing Barr could have done Day 1. The process that I describe couldn't be done until after they have identified all of it, which is at the earliest late last week/early this week.

Instead he's stalling, and you're playing defense for him.

See above, and understanding how the law views GJ testimony and classified information and the requirements that the DOJ has to follow is a defense of the process not of Barr/Mueller.

#110 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-17 01:49 PM | Reply

" 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."

Completely out of context. The affirmed position was discussing implied exceptions when quoting the above case and that "we rejected the Government's then-position that there is a place for implied exceptions to the Rule...It would be most peculiar to have stressed then that the exceptions in Rule 6(e) "must be narrowly construed," id. 769, yet to hold now that they may be supplemented by unwritten additions."

McKeever is nothing if not a huge emphasis of the validity of 6(e) exemptions and does not go further past affirming their validity. Specifically, the McKeever ruling also reaffirmed the grand jury disclosure vis-a-vis the Clinton impeachment proceedings to Congressional Representatives stating it "seems incredible that grand jury matters should lawfully be available to disbarment committees and police disciplinary investigations and yet be unavailable to the House of Representatives in a proceeding of so great import as an impeachment investigation."

#111 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-04-17 02:56 PM | Reply

Specifically, the McKeever ruling also reaffirmed the grand jury disclosure vis-a-vis the Clinton impeachment proceedings to Congressional Representatives stating it "seems incredible that grand jury matters should lawfully be available to disbarment committees and police disciplinary investigations and yet be unavailable to the House of Representatives in a proceeding of so great import as an impeachment investigation."

Which is why I have repeatedly said that if the House wants all the GJ testimony under 6(e) they need to commence impeachment proceedings to be sure that they fall within the 6(e) exception under both Haldemann and the case that your quote is from, See In re Report & Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury Concerning Transmission of Evidence to House of Representatives, 370 F. Supp. 1219, 1228-30 (D.D.C. 1974).

Pelosi has specifically said that "impeachment is off table" and until she puts it back on, the Haldemann argument is probably off the table as well.

She could put it back on once she sees the report tomorrow, but we will have to wait and see.

#112 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-17 04:11 PM | Reply

ROC is really invested in this. These are the kinds of people I worry about. Not whether Congress will get the full report. Congress will get the full report. I am not worried about that. The report belongs to Congress. And they are entitled to it. They have the clearance to see it. Any "obstacles " can be overcome. But what does bother me that the President continues to Obstruct Justice right in front of us and the Deplorable folks like ROC gleefully and arrogantly act as if this is all normal and this is all ok and everything is going according to Plan.

It is Not normal

It is Not ok

There is no Plan

#113 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-04-17 05:31 PM | Reply

LOL, I am interested in the legal aspects of this because...wait for it...this is what I do for a living.

As for the conclusions, what happens, happens. If he obstructed, impeach him.

I really don't care if he stays or goes, but you should, since President Pence will be much worse for the Left than Donnie Little Hands.

#114 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-17 06:15 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort