SURVEY: Should the Mueller Report be made public?

[riclag]

16 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice_Office_of_Special_Counsel

"The Office of Special Counsel was an office of the United States Department of Justice established by provisions in the Ethics in Government Act that expired in 1999. The provisions were replaced by Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600, which created the successor office of special counsel. The current regulations were drafted by former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal"

 

Speaking of whom, here's Neal's vote to make Special Counsel Mueller's report public.

 

 

"Mueller spent 22 months investigating this. He didn't reach a conclusion. He laid out in his report the evidence from both sides, presumably for Congress to evaluate. And the the attorney general goes and swoops in within 48 hours and says 'I've decided there's no obstruction of justice...maybe harkening back to his (Barr's) 19-page memo last year, who knows...

 

This raises far more questions than it answers and it just underscores why we all really need to see the Mueller Report."

 

"...it is absolutely wrong to say that Mueller invited Barr or the Justice Dept to reach their own determination. That is nowhere in the letter..."

 

"...about collusion...that's a criminal standard Mueller was applying. And that's why again the report needs to come out because there may be evidence short of that very highs standard--beyond a reasonable doubt--that the American public needs to see."

 

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44857.pdf

Pages 15,16,17

You get  from Mr. Barr what the rules and regulations  say, despite what "anybody" else says

[elmrfudd]

31 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Pretty good post but it should be noted that Im not afraid of the left. I mean what are they gonna do? Hit me with dildos & water-bongs? 

or a dlido that is also a water bong

[watcharacters]

 

 

I rather ask   "Why should it not be made public?"

 

 

[sfokevin]

Full disclosure seemed to be in order...

 

[Skallywag]

Taxpayers paid for it, we should hear it from the horses mouth - so to speak.

 

 Mueller should give a summary on the news - live on air and in print -  of his conclusions

[riclag]

15 minutes ago, sfokevin said:

Full disclosure seemed to be in order...

It seems many liberals want to circumvent  the law! This is the rules and regulations for Special Counsels  in America!

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44857.pdf

Pages 15.16.17.

[sfokevin]

15 minutes ago, riclag said:

It seems many liberals want to circumvent  the law! This is the rules and regulations for Special Counsels  in America!

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44857.pdf

Pages 15.16.17.

Where were you when the full Starr report was released?...

[Bluespunk]

Release the whole thing. 

 

Unredacted. 

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

This right here should net a galactic, media wide apology to both Trump, and anyone on the right that was slandered for years over this crazy nonsense. 

 

But no, they are going to double down and pull whatever they can out of that report and continue on with this stupidity. 

All I have to do is relive trumps greatest hits here is a few I don’t like people who were captured sucking up to the Russians in the Oval Office whal blabbing classified material stabbing nato in the guts believing putin over our intelligence agency’s that’s just scratching the surface any American watching this wreak should have the alarm bells going not to look at him would be derelict that crosses party lines

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Release the whole thing. 

 

Unredacted. 

I think you must know that that is illegal.

[Proboscis]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Released as fully as possible protecting classified sources and techniques 

This is the proper answer and it was a pity that those who designed the so-called survey above did not provide this as an option. There is no way iin which any sensible government would reveal classified sources, information and techniques. Also, there may be very sensitive information that is being used by other investigations or prosecutors (remember that the Southern District of New York as a number of cases that were spun off from the Mueller Investigation).

[Bluespunk]

20 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I think you must know that that is illegal.

In politics, revealing the truth often is.

[riclag]

35 minutes ago, sfokevin said:

Where were you when the full Starr report was released?...

Starr  report 1998   

New regulations for how to implement rules for special counsel changed in 1999.

"As of 2018, these regulations remain in effect in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600 (28 CFR §600)"

 

quick reference https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44857.pdf

 

[lannarebirth]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

In politics, revealing the truth often is.

And the flip side of course, is that it's an absolute crime that which is legal.

[quandow]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Pretty good post but it should be noted that Im not afraid of the left. I mean what are they gonna do? Hit me with dildos & water-bongs? 

Sorry I didn't check with you first.

[quandow]

24 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I think you must know that that is illegal.

BUT it is NOT illegal to give congress the entire, unredacted report. In fact, that is their job, to look at the evidence and act upon it. Again, what are they hiding?

[bkkgriz]

Yes, release it and then prosecute the Dems that pushed this made up narrative that wasted millions of dollars and tried to unseat a duly elected president through a coup. 

 

And if you still believe in this BS, I truly feel sorry for you. But hey, thanks for a Trump 2020 victory. Dems, you played yourselves. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I voted that the report should be released to the public in full. Normally these things would not be, other than brief synopsis of the content. But this case is so far removed from the normal, and the consequences will be so severe that it is best to release the full report. After that, it is time to take action against those that paid for the fake dossier, and more importantly the media outlets that ran with a fake story for 3 years with zero evidence. This was not a little oopsie we made a small error. This was howling fake news, and doubling down, and tripling down, and still people haven't come to terms that they were so misled. This should never happen again. I believe Trump will make sure of that. So for that reason the report needs to be released.

I agree entirely with your first three sentences. 

Everything there after is opinion that releasing the full report will confirm or disprove.

 

So yes, the full report ASAP

[Suradit69]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

At the rate it is being leaked I don't think there will be anything that is not already known at the time of the report's release.

Always assuming we can believe the leaks have not been refashioned to serve the interest of the leakers.

[riclag]

18 minutes ago, quandow said:

BUT it is NOT illegal to give congress the entire, unredacted report. In fact, that is their job, to look at the evidence and act upon it. Again, what are they hiding?

They will get whats established in the "rules and regulations" 

[lannarebirth]

Just now, Suradit69 said:

Always assuming we can believe the leaks have not been refashioned to serve the interest of the leakers.

 

That's true, but so far at least, there have been as many leaks from the Democrat side as from the Republican side. I'm not sure from where they gather their information.

[neeray]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Thought this was pretty obvious? Its not only the AG that considers it that way. Its the actual law. You are allowed to talk to and do business with Russian people. 

Then why was it necessary to lie about when the talks with Russia, about building a hotel there, ended?

Trump and group have told an awful lot of lies. I imagine that would all be clear in the Mueller report. Maybe not illegal, but clear.

[riclag]

7 minutes ago, neeray said:

Then why was it necessary to lie about when the talks with Russia, about building a hotel there, ended?

Trump and group have told an awful lot of lies. I imagine that would all be clear in the Mueller report. Maybe not illegal, but clear.

Maybe not illegal and defiantly not a crime!

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

[Thainesss]

9 minutes ago, neeray said:

Then why was it necessary to lie about when the talks with Russia, about building a hotel there, ended?

 

Why give the opposing party any ammunition. 

[thaicurious]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44857.pdf

Pages 15,16,17

You get  from Mr. Barr what the rules and regulations  say, despite what "anybody" else says

Not quite sure what your point is. If your point is that Barr does not have to show what he doesn't want to show, my reading of your referenced pages doesn't seem to say that. If I read it right, this quote from there sums succinctly from pg 15/16:

"The regulations do not expressly provide for disclosure of this report to any other parties, nor do they further identify the parameters of the content of that report. The regulations do, however, require the Attorney General to make certain reports to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Judiciary Committees of each house of Congress, including upon the conclusion of the investigation"

 

I just skimmed that very detailed info (will read more later--real interesting, thanx for the post) but in what little I read, it does not say that whatever full information is not forthcoming from Barr can not be subpoenaed. My understanding is that it can and it will.

 

Trump's running out of matryoshkas.

 

edit: and PS, from your same source

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/03/mueller-congress-crs/

"If the Attorney General decided to withhold portions of the pending report of the Special Counsel...Congress has tools of its own to pursue the desired information...

 

... “Congress could opt to seek documents or testimony from grand jury witnesses themselves,” CRS said.

As for executive privilege, it “is generally qualified, and can be surmounted (in court) if Congress can show an overriding need for the information.”

 

 

[riclag]

23 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Not quite sure what your point is. If your point is that Barr does not have to show what he doesn't want to show, my reading of your referenced pages doesn't seem to say that. If I read it right, this quote from there sums succinctly from pg 15/16:

"The regulations do not expressly provide for disclosure of this report to any other parties, nor do they further identify the parameters of the content of that report. The regulations do, however, require the Attorney General to make certain reports to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Judiciary Committees of each house of Congress, including upon the conclusion of the investigation"

 

I just skimmed that very detailed info (will read more later--real interesting, thanx for the post) but in what little I read, it does not say that whatever full information is not forthcoming from Barr can not be subpoenaed. My understanding is that it can and it will.

 

Trump's running out of matryoshkas.

The report is confidential the only thing Barr has to report to Congress is if there was a charge and whether it was disputed(there is none),other than that its the Barr report,good luck with the subpoena

"The regulation’s use of the word “including,” which generally denotes that the terms that follow are illustrative and not definitional, may suggest that the Attorney General’s report to Congress is not necessarily limited to explanations of the Special Counsel’s prosecutorial decisions. None of the reporting requirements mandate public release of any information shared either between DOJ officials or between DOJ and congressional committees". 

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44857.pdf

 

[thaicurious]

It does not matter that existing regulations might not mandate public access. (not mandating does not equal some required denial of access. It simply means Barr might have the temporary option. But his option can be superseded by Congress and the Courts)

 

Congress has the power (with the courts) to demand it.

 

And in the midst of all this Trump caused turmoil, when the Republican House refused their roll in the checks and balances that is this governmental structure, the American electorate saw fit to replace them with a Democratic House that would check the president's abuse of power.

 

It's called Democracy.

[Emdog]

"...take action against those that paid for the fake dossier"

You want to go after the Republicans that started Steele dossier? Pretty sure it was Ted Cruz bunch who started this ball rolling, later picked up by the Dems.

makes sense that Cruz would start it: after all, it was his father who was in on JFK assassination, according to Trump. Oh, and his daddy also fought with Fidel back in Cuba.

Most of that dossier has been shown to be correct, btw

And FBI investigation started before the dossier came out

[riclag]

28 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

Congress has the power (with the courts) to demand it

I disagree, I haven't found anything in that Special Counsel statues that gives Congress the right to change something mid stream.  Subpoena,  away

 

[usviphotography]

It should be released eventually, but the priority now has to be bringing the people and nation's responsible for this hoax to Justice. To that end, it may not be prudent to release everything until those trials are completed.