Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Special Council Muller Report

Politics   (11,506 Views 543 Comments)
7,197 Visitors; 283 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 2 of Special Council Muller Report. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

    • Attorney General William Barr
      1
    • House Intelligence Committee
      4
    • Who Cares
      1

6 members have participated

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/20/2019 at 07:28 PM

I can’t get excited about a report that if/when released will likely be so heavily redacted as to be essentially useless. 

It would be like reading The three little redacted and the big bad redacted, only with less detail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I incorrectly presumed that we are all aware that the Whitewater report was given to Congress and that we recall both Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings in Congress.

This link provides a reasonable discussion of those investigations, IMHO.

What Independent Investigations of the Past Can Teach Congress About Its Role in the Mueller Probe

The regulations that the special prosecutor operates under now were put in place in 1999.

I presume we all know that is well after Whitewater and Iran-Contra.

Edited by SC_RNDude
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

The regulations that the special prosecutor operates under now were put in place in 1999.

I presume we all know that is well after Whitewater and Iran-Contra.

I provided a link to those regulations. It does not preclude disclosure to Congress  or suggest that the report should remain secret within the DOJ.  Perhaps Barr was testing whether he could provide just his assessment to Congress rather than the actual report.

Edited by toomuchbaloney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 9:31 AM, SC_RNDude said:

Not that I’m aware of.  And your link hasn’t enlightened me of any such precedent.

And, the only confusion I’m aware of is coming from the anti-Trumpers.  I don’t see what is so confusing.

“The DOJ regulations really do leave it up to Barr to decide,” Katy Harriger, a professor at Wake Forest University and the author of The Special Prosecutor in American Politics, told me in an email. “The only constraints on that are public pressure, which, if loud and consistent enough, is likely to make him release more, rather than less, of the report.” - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/what-has-happen-muellers-report-become-public/586060/

I think the precedent you're looking for is that the US has always been a government accountable to the people through transparency and accountability, I don't think that needs to be restated in the DOJ regulations specific to a special counsel in order to exist.  One of the biggest proponents of late for full government transparency has been Donald Trump (at least pre-2017 Trump anyway).

According to the guy who wrote the DOJ regulation we're talking about, it doesn't in any way prohibit the report from being made public (with appropriate redactions).  Republicans don't appear to be opposed to making the report public, Barr has already stated his intention to give the report to congress, and congress has already taken a vote on whether it should be made public, not a single republican voted against it.  

I don't know that there's much new to be learned however, there's already been 37 criminal indictments from the Mueller probe, and there are multiple cases and investigations that are still ongoing.  

Edited by MunoRN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some investigators who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller have said Attorney General William Barr did not accurately summarize the findings of their probe

...    Multiple summaries of the report had already been written, the Times reports, and some of the investigators believe Barr should have put more of their conclusions in the memo...

https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/833191/report-some-mueller-investigators-say-barr-did-not-accurately-portray-inquiry-findings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, herring_RN said:

Some investigators who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller have said Attorney General William Barr did not accurately summarize the findings of their probe

...    Multiple summaries of the report had already been written, the Times reports, and some of the investigators believe Barr should have put more of their conclusions in the memo...

https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/833191/report-some-mueller-investigators-say-barr-did-not-accurately-portray-inquiry-findings

Thank goodness people are more vocal about what is going on. It did not make sense. Maybe it is the Nurse in me, but how could a two-year Special Council Report have only a 4-page summary. In my opinion, as someone who votes every election, I want the people who are elected to represent us as American's do their job regardless of their party affiliation. Our democracy was played with by people of a foreign government. How will history judge us? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 3:10 PM, azhiker96 said:

I can’t get excited about a report that if/when released will likely be so heavily redacted as to be essentially useless. 

It would be like reading The three little redacted and the big bad redacted, only with less detail. 

That is why someone like Attorney General Willam Barr should have recused himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, herring_RN said:

Some investigators who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller have said Attorney General William Barr did not accurately summarize the findings of their probe

...    Multiple summaries of the report had already been written, the Times reports, and some of the investigators believe Barr should have put more of their conclusions in the memo...

https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/833191/report-some-mueller-investigators-say-barr-did-not-accurately-portray-inquiry-findings

Yes, the NY Times ran a story yesterday that contained the same claim, that Mueller's team wrote several summaries, which Barr didn't use, and that are reportedly much less kind to Trump.

Not surprised.

Barr was handpicked for the job by Trump.

And that is why I believe Trumpsters started their victory dance too soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, herring_RN said:

Some investigators who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller have said Attorney General William Barr did not accurately summarize the findings of their probe

...    Multiple summaries of the report had already been written, the Times reports, and some of the investigators believe Barr should have put more of their conclusions in the memo...

https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/833191/report-some-mueller-investigators-say-barr-did-not-accurately-portray-inquiry-findings

Notice the stories arent sourcing the investigators.  It’s the old “people familiar with the matter”.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

Notice the stories arent sourcing the investigators.  It’s the old “people familiar with the matter”.  

 

Are you at all familiar with the term "background"?

Apparently not.

But it is used in journalism, in order to protect sources.

I am sure you can't imagine why those on Mueller team wouldn't want to be identified.

Since Mueller is likely to be subpoenaed, and the report not yet public, it is perfectly reasonable for these sources not to be identified.

Your attempt to discredit news reports that you don't like is pretty obvious, and Trump 101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

Notice the stories arent sourcing the investigators.  It’s the old “people familiar with the matter”.  

 

I am sure you have never doubted Barr's 101-word summary, of a 300 page report, once. 

Not once. 

And why should you?

Trump handpicked Barr!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×