They cannot release any classified information, or grand jury testimony. For those that are in favor of releasing the full report you may want to think about what you want. They have determined after two years of investigating that there wasn't even a valid probable cause to start the investigation into an opposing political candidate (which started during the end of a Presidential campaign).

 

The investigation was started because of an unverified dossier that was provided by the Russians and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign (through a law firm hired by the Democrats, and an opposition research company named Fusion GPS). This fake information (also unverified) was the primary information used to get secret warrants from a FISA court to spy on members of the Trump campaign, and possibly Trump himself.

 

This is a huge scandal and the only known collusion uncovered so far was the Hillary campaign paying Russia for unverified dirt on candidate Trump. I believe this is much larger than Watergate or any other scandal in American political history. I wonder when (or if) the next shoe will drop, and how the FISA warrants were issued is declassified and released? The President can declassify information if he wants.

5 hours ago, Credo said:

The purpose of a special counsel on the President is for Congress to make a determination of possible impeachable offenses.   In order to do that, Congress has to have full access to the report, and all supporting documents.   

 

Congress, along with the security agencies, should have final say in what is redacted before release to the public.   The public has a right to the information.   

Completely false comment/opinion. The purpose of the special council was to find out if laws were broken. They determined that there was no evidence after two years investigating.  The House of Representatives can "impeach" Trump for anything they think rises to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor", However, the Senate would never vote for impeachment which means that Trump would be impeached but not removed from office. This would ensure that his re-election would be guaranteed with even more support that the first time around. Making questionable tweets and calling people names while unwise and childish are not impeachable offenses, but they can be entertaining at times.

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

They cannot release any classified information, or grand jury testimony. For those that are in favor of releasing the full report you may want to think about what you want. They have determined after two years of investigating that there wasn't even a valid probable cause to start the investigation into an opposing political candidate (which started during the end of a Presidential campaign).

 

The investigation was started because of an unverified dossier that was provided by the Russians and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign (through a law firm hired by the Democrats, and an opposition research company named Fusion GPS). This fake information (also unverified) was the primary information used to get secret warrants from a FISA court to spy on members of the Trump campaign, and possibly Trump himself.

 

This is a huge scandal and the only known collusion uncovered so far was the Hillary campaign paying Russia for unverified dirt on candidate Trump. I believe this is much larger than Watergate or any other scandal in American political history. I wonder when (or if) the next shoe will drop, and how the FISA warrants were issued is declassified and released? The President can declassify information if he wants.

 

Your arguments against the investigation are based on the lie that it was started on the basis of the Steele Dossier.

 

The Russia investigation started in July of 2016 when a drunk George Papadopoulos ran his mouth off to an Australian diplomat, revealing his discussions with Russian government agents offering dirt on Clinton.

 

Away with you and your attempts to re-write facts with porky pies.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Completely false comment/opinion. The purpose of the special council was to find out if laws were broken. They determined that there was no evidence after two years investigating.  The House of Representatives can "impeach" Trump for anything they think rises to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor", However, the Senate would never vote for impeachment which means that Trump would be impeached but not removed from office. This would ensure that his re-election would be guaranteed with even more support that the first time around. Making questionable tweets and calling people names while unwise and childish are not impeachable offenses, but they can be entertaining at times.

Can you pass your copy of the Mueller report so we can all see what it concluded.

 

I don’t do ‘faith based’ evidence.

1 hour ago, Longcut said:

 Steele dossier’s claims for one?

As far as I know, it's not a testimony before the grand jury.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you pass your copy of the Mueller report so we can all see what it concluded.

 

I don’t do ‘faith based’ evidence.

Mueller's conclusion 

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

 

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

Mueller's conclusion 

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

 

You forgot to precede the above with:

 

‘Barr says’.

 

I’ll know what Mueller’s conclusion is when I read it for myself.

 

Being an adult I don’t need others to read for me.

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You forgot to precede the above with:

 

‘Barr says’.

 

I’ll know what Mueller’s conclusion is when I read it for myself.

 

Being an adult I don’t need others to read for me.

 

But there are a few places where the attorney general quotes from the Mueller report itself — that is, where he quotes Mueller’s own words

 

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

 

Talking about the conclusion ,in Muellers own words, are you suggesting Mueller lied this was his conclusion in quotes! 

 

 

1 minute ago, riclag said:

But there are a few places where the attorney general quotes from the Mueller report itself — that is, where he quotes Mueller’s own words

 

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

 

Talking about the conclusion ,in Muellers own words, are you suggesting Mueller lied this was his conclusion in quotes! 

 

 

Or at least he tells you he does.

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or at least he tells you he does.

 

 

 

 

 Hogwash!  Mr. Mueller said "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Hogwash!  Mr. Mueller said "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

Mr Barr said, Mr Mueller said.

 

Which, getting back on topic, is why I voted to see the report for myself.

 

I don’t need, nor want, hand picked political appointees reading reports on my behalf and then telling me what they want me to believe is in the report.

 

I accept you might be happy having stuff read to you. I like to read for myself.

 

Feel free not to read the Mueller report when it is published.

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

reading reports on my behalf

 

But you aren't even American. 

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

But you aren't even American. 

I look forward to you presenting evidence to back up that assertion.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You forgot to precede the above with:

 

‘Barr says’.

 

I’ll know what Mueller’s conclusion is when I read it for myself.

 

Being an adult I don’t need others to read for me.

 

So I;m curious can the report be redacted if so who should present it to the Congress Mr. Mueller or Mr. Barr

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

So I;m curious can the report be redacted if so who should present it to the Congress Mr. Mueller or Mr. Barr

I personally don’t believe the report should  be redacted and should be handed in its entirety to the Congressional Committees that have requested the report.

 

Congress has oversight of the DoJ and while Barr was appointed by Trump he is under Congressional oversight.

 

Congress ha requested the full report plus supporting evidence to be handed over by tomorrow.

 

If, as is expected, Barr fails to comply Congress will issue a Subpoena and eventually the courts will decide.

 

Given the public interest in this I would expect the courts to expedite the legal ruling if a Subpoena is challenged.

 

Don’t bet on the courts backing the administration against Congress on matters of oversight.

The foul stench of treachery is hanging thick over the whole Trump administration

 

https://news.yahoo.com/congress-prepares-battle-over-secret-100007575.html

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I personally don’t believe the report should  be redacted and should be handed in its entirety to the Congressional Committees that have requested the report.

 

Congress has oversight of the DoJ and while Barr was appointed by Trump he is under Congressional oversight.

 

Congress ha requested the full report plus supporting evidence to be handed over by tomorrow.

 

If, as is expected, Barr fails to comply Congress will issue a Subpoena and eventually the courts will decide.

 

Given the public interest in this I would expect the courts to expedite the legal ruling if a Subpoena is challenged.

 

Don’t bet on the courts backing the administration against Congress on matters of oversight.

Ok !no redaction's! Can you please answer my question ! Who should present the Mueller report to Congress Mr. Barr or Mr. Mueller,seeing you don't trust Mr. Barr!

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

Ok !no redaction's! Can you please answer my question ! Who should present the Mueller report to Congress Mr. Barr or Mr. Mueller,seeing you don't trust Mr. Barr!

The report, in its entirety, should be handed to Congress by Barr.

 

Congress can obtain clarification on anything that concerns them from Barr and/or Mueller by demanding their testimony under oath.

 

There is no need for ‘trust’, simply show the report.

 

 

So what should America do about the current law on the books ,special counsel report rules on reporting,totally disregard it?

Because it doesn’t mention anything about what your suggesting

30 minutes ago, riclag said:

So what should America do about the current law on the books ,special counsel report rules on reporting,totally disregard it?

Because it doesn’t mention anything about what your suggesting

Let Congress decide.

 

Out of curiosity, who told you there was information in the report that that cannot be legally reported?

 

Please don’t tell us the same person who you are relying on to read the report on your behalf.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Your arguments against the investigation are based on the lie that it was started on the basis of the Steele Dossier.

 

The Russia investigation started in July of 2016 when a drunk George Papadopoulos ran his mouth off to an Australian diplomat, revealing his discussions with Russian government agents offering dirt on Clinton.

 

Away with you and your attempts to re-write facts with porky pies.

 

 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants were not based on the Papadopolis's drunk conversation in a bar with an Australian diplomat, but the start of an investigation might have been. My hope is that it would take more than uncorroborated talk while inebriated to get a surveillance warrant against an opposing political candidates campaign in the USA and later against a sitting US President.

 

FBI officials (Andrew McCabe, who was fired)  have previously stated before congress that the FISA warrants would likely not have been granted without the completely discredited opposition research piece that was the Steele Dossier. Which by the way to date, has been the only piece of evidence that "Russian collusion" actually occurred, but it was Russian collusion with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which paid for the unverified dossier to be produced by the Russians by a company called Fusion GPS. 

 

So perhaps it is not I that is attempting to re-write facts with some type of meat pie?

 

 

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you pass your copy of the Mueller report so we can all see what it concluded.

 

I don’t do ‘faith based’ evidence.

You could refer to the attorney generals summation, and the report with everything allowed by law will be out in a week or two.

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants were not based on the Papadopolis's drunk conversation in a bar with an Australian diplomat, but the start of an investigation might have been. My hope is that it would take more than uncorroborated talk while inebriated to get a surveillance warrant against an opposing political candidates campaign in the USA and later against a sitting US President.

 

FBI officials (Andrew McCabe, who was fired)  have previously stated before congress that the FISA warrants would likely not have been granted without the completely discredited opposition research piece that was the Steele Dossier. Which by the way to date, has been the only piece of evidence that "Russian collusion" actually occurred, but it was Russian collusion with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which paid for the unverified dossier to be produced by the Russians by a company called Fusion GPS. 

 

So perhaps it is not I that is attempting to re-write facts with some type of meat pie?

 

 

Once again, but I know you’ll ignore it., nothing in the Steele Dossier has been demonstrated to be incorrect, much has been demonstrated to be true.

 

The Steele Dossier has not, per your claim, been discredited.

 

Getting back on topic, the publication of the Mueller report will enable us all to see for ourselves, not least amongst the things we can expect to learn is the veracity or otherwise of Steele’s assertions.

 

Let’s be adults and read the Mueller report for ourselves.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You could refer to the attorney generals summation, and the report with everything allowed by law will be out in a week or two.

The AG has since written claiming his summary is not a summary.

 

Congress will get the full report.

 

I shall remind you when they do.

The Mueller report came out with no collusion, the whole point of the investigation.  The case is closed and people need to move on.  The report should be made public as well as a whole host of other reports kept secret over the years in the name of keeping the people safe.

IT is only the policy of the Justice Dept that a sitting president can not be indicted.

 

In previous grand juries the report and background material were made public. Yes, nat'l security etc should be redacted but the people should be the government. The people paid for it too.

1 hour ago, Becker said:

The foul stench of treachery is hanging thick over the whole Trump administration

 

https://news.yahoo.com/congress-prepares-battle-over-secret-100007575.html

Interesting quote from the linked article:

“The Russians helped elect Donald Trump. That is not subject to debate,” Himes said. “Donald Trump’s son and campaign were offered help, and instead of going to the FBI, they welcomed it. Turns out, that, according to Mueller, that doesn’t rise to the level of a chargeable conspiracy.”

"Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday grilled top White House aide Kellyanne Conway over President Donald Trump’s repeated false claims that he was totally exonerated by special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation."

 

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/chris-wallace-hammers-kellyanne-conway-174320902.html

 The courts will decide whether Congress can change what they created and was govern by for 20 years

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg56376/html/CHRG-106shrg56376.htm

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

 The courts will decide whether Congress can change what they created and was govern by for 20 years

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg56376/html/CHRG-106shrg56376.htm

Be assured it won't be Barr who decides.

 

And don't put your hopes on the courts choosing to back any law that impedes Congress' Constitutional duty of oversight.