24 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Procedure isn't different in either case. He clearly lives in two different worlds. FWIW I hope they release the report and Trump also said let it come out. So just pointing out his 180 spin in direction. No need to say anything about me wanting to keep the files secret because I don't care either way.

For me it's a difference as to whether you look at it from a purist point of view or if you look at it as a pragmatist which makes the application of the procedure different because of the severe difference in an overriding public interest.

 

No one ever needed to know about cum stains on a dress. But that is not election interference.

 

There would still have to be redactions of, say, classified sources and methods, again, because pragmatism would recognize the importance of national security. But protecting someone's reputation as a factor overriding our need to know? Whose reputation? The pussy grabber's? That ship has sailed.

21 hours ago, mikebike said:

Phew, that's good news. Mr. Assange has his uses, but a classroom primer his leaks are not!

 

Oh wait, did you mean Wikipedia?

 

Why wouldn't a curated, fully referenced, digital source be a good beginning resource for research projects?

I did mean Wikipedia, thanks for the correct. Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a reference because it can be full of false information. It can be used as a beginning source for a research project, but Wikipedia cannot be used as the reference for the actual project. you have to look up the actual sources and use them and not just cut and paste from a website that is often not 100% correct.

 

15 hours ago, riclag said:

Before the statue similar to the current Special Counsel R &R went up for reauthorization in 1993 the Dem Congress favored it and  its procedures..During the years proceeding ,Whitewater and the Clinton impeachment, the statue came up again for reauthorization. The current  law is much different than the previous one,especially when it comes to making public the entire report .  Sadly after twenty years the dems want to change the current statue again, This time MIDSTREAM !

 

March 1999-Attorney General Janet Reno said at a Senate hearing today that she was prepared to abandon the independent counsel statute because it had failed to remove politics from cases involving top administration officials, was fatally flawed by procedural ambiguities and seriously distorted critical prosecution decisions.

''My change of heart about this statute has not come lightly,'' Ms. Reno told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. ''To those who question me about this or who tell me that they told me so, I can only say this: I've now seen how the statute operates close up, probably more close up than anybody in this country.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/18/us/independent-counsel-law-is-too-flawed-to-renew-reno-tells-senate-panel.html

I have to agree with Janet Reno on this one. I came to this conclusion after the Clinton impeachment. Although he should not have lied during his questioning the subject that he was lying about did not relate to the original investigation. Which is exactly what happened in this investigation. Manafort was convicted of actions occurring well before Trump hired him onto his campaign and for issues unrelated to the original investigation. The other convictions were also process crimes (lying to the FBI). not that lying to the FBI should go unpunished but it isn't a level playing field when Hillary can lie about her email issues and not be prosecuted and associates of Trump are prosecuted for the very same offense.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I have to agree with Janet Reno on this one. I came to this conclusion after the Clinton impeachment. Although he should not have lied during his questioning the subject that he was lying about did not relate to the original investigation. Which is exactly what happened in this investigation. Manafort was convicted of actions occurring well before Trump hired him onto his campaign and for issues unrelated to the original investigation. The other convictions were also process crimes (lying to the FBI). not that lying to the FBI should go unpunished but it isn't a level playing field when Hillary can lie about her email issues and not be prosecuted and associates of Trump are prosecuted for the very same offense.

But but but .... Hillary!

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But but but .... Hillary!

It's the sort of optimism that keeps the Democratic Party alive.

That is the only way the truth will ever be known.  Politicians cannot be trusted.

 

2 minutes ago, Prairieboy said:

That is the only way the truth will ever be known.  Politicians cannot be trusted.

 

If that is the case why do you trust politicians?

Some inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. 

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I have to agree with Janet Reno on this one. I came to this conclusion after the Clinton impeachment. Although he should not have lied during his questioning the subject that he was lying about did not relate to the original investigation. Which is exactly what happened in this investigation. Manafort was convicted of actions occurring well before Trump hired him onto his campaign and for issues unrelated to the original investigation. The other convictions were also process crimes (lying to the FBI). not that lying to the FBI should go unpunished but it isn't a level playing field when Hillary can lie about her email issues and not be prosecuted and associates of Trump are prosecuted for the very same offense.

 So you agree release the report according to the current statue guidelines

Release the report. 

 

The Starr Report was released, why not do the same?

 

And the president tells us that the Mueller Report exonerates him so you would think he'd want it released?

 

At the 2:00 mark of this video trump says the release of the report "wouldn't bother him at all", so there you go.

 

 

 

 

And while we're at it, let's look into the "Oranges" of the Mueller Report...

 

 

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 So you agree release the report according to the current statue guidelines

That is what I said originally, so the answer is yes.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But but but .... Hillary!

No but, but, but..... however, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

Release the report. 

 

The Starr Report was released, why not do the same?

 

And the president tells us that the Mueller Report exonerates him so you would think he'd want it released?

 

At the 2:00 mark of this video trump says the release of the report "wouldn't bother him at all", so there you go.

  

 

The legal statutes that were in place during the time of the Starr report are different than the ones in place now. The President does not determine what is legally releasable. That is something that AG Barr (and Mueller) are working on now. They will release all that is legally releasable (something I have said in several posts so far). This will not be enough for the Democrats because they want information that can legally not be released, so they will cry cover up for the next two years as Trump wins another term in 2020.



 

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No but, but, but..... however, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Agree, complete unredacted reporting to Congress. 

38 minutes ago, riclag said:

 So you agree release the report according to the current statue guidelines

And in accordance with the Constitution. 

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The President does not determine what is legally releasable.

 

I believe he has the authority to order the release of the report, including any necessary de-classification of sensitive material.

 

Hiding behind DoJ guidelines, and other non-binding "rules" (not statutes) just makes it look there is something to hide?

 

Neal Katyal, who helped write the Special Counsel "rules" would seem to agree.

 

“The public has every right to see Robert S. Mueller III's conclusions. Absolutely nothing in the law or the regulations prevents the report from becoming public. Indeed, the relevant sources of law give Attorney General P. William Barr all the latitude in the world to make it public,” Katyal wrote. 

 

Lawyer who helped write special counsel rules says Mueller report can be released

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/435435-lawyer-who-helped-write-special-counsel-rules-says-mueller-report-can

 

 

 

 

 

It's almost always the attempted coverup that reveals the crimes.

seems the trump supporters say release it but the findings will be misinterpreted. so are you saying even if they release it in full you don't believe it? i seem to remember the phrase- the report does not clear the president one way or the other. yet i see your all agreeing with the trump victory lap. another interesting phrase from Barr- did not collude with the RUSSIAN government. does that exclude private russian citizens that may or may not have connections to the government that couldn't be proved? i would be extremely happy if trump didn't collude with foreign entities that broke the law to secure the trump presidency, unfortunately i don't feel he's been vindicated at all and his supporters don't care.

are they really bringing up clintons emails when trump doesn't even use a secure phone? yea your real patriots lol.

I wonder why Trumpists are so opposed to the publication of the report? Their beloved President himself has declared he is not opposed to it, and that it would not bother him.

 

Or is it that they don't trust his word?

2 hours ago, riclag said:

 So you agree release the report according to the current statue guidelines

Yes, if the report can be released as some have suggested release the whole damn thing. I would like to see the report on what started this whole thing off also.

21 hours ago, riclag said:

"The special counsel, under the rules, has an obligation to file a report with the attorney general. There’s nothing in the rules that require the attorney general to make the report public, particularly if it contains information critical of people who were not indicted. So, this is a political,media issue and not a legal  issue". Mr. D

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/01/dershowitz_no_legal_basis_for_democrats_to_demand_public_release_of_full_mueller_report.html

So you love rules when they suit you, but are OK to ignore them when it is inconvenient...

 

There is nothing in the rules which say it cannot be released, so of course it is a political issue Captain Obvious...

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

No but, but, but..... however, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

So you are a hardcore “two wrongs make a right” guy! Coolio!!

 

I am am totally down for a full investigation of the Clinton political machine, prosecution of any and all crimes (including “process”), and full release of that report.

The only reason why the report would not be made public would be partisan considerations, and a cover up of ugly, nasty, corrupt, heinous past deeds of Individual 1, of which there are hundreds if not thousands. That is just who he is and how he rolls. Now, the protection rackets are in full cover up mode.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I would like to see the report on what started this whole thing off also.

 

The "oranges"?

 

Probably didn't help that Jared talked trump into firing Comey?

 

But if you insist on an investigation then I would support it.

 

Support for the Mueller investigation was almost universally supported in a bi-partisan fashion in the beginning. Less so now.

 

 

20 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

The Starr Report was released, why not do the same?

 

Stop comparing Apples and origins!

Some of Mullers team coming out saying their report is much more damaging than Barr let’s on why am I not surprised he’s a dirty little monkey that Donald 

On 4/1/2019 at 7:15 AM, 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.

 

 

actually, that has not been established in any way that this started the investigation.

He was never in any FISA warrant. the phony Carter page justification was though.

and those phony Carter Page accusations are in the phony Steele Dossier. 

you can be sure this will be coming out as more information gets released.

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It's almost always the attempted coverup that reveals the crimes.

you are right, and we will be finding out who was behind this sham soon.

20 hours ago, johnnykak said:

seems the trump supporters say release it but the findings will be misinterpreted. so are you saying even if they release it in full you don't believe it? i seem to remember the phrase- the report does not clear the president one way or the other. yet i see your all agreeing with the trump victory lap. another interesting phrase from Barr- did not collude with the RUSSIAN government. does that exclude private russian citizens that may or may not have connections to the government that couldn't be proved? i would be extremely happy if trump didn't collude with foreign entities that broke the law to secure the trump presidency, unfortunately i don't feel he's been vindicated at all and his supporters don't care.

good thing you aren't making far fetched unfounded assumptions with no bias..........

 

or not