U.S. Justice Department may advise Trump to claim privilege over Mueller report

 

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at an event to celebrate the anniversary of first lady Melania Trump's “Be Best” initiative in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department threatened on Tuesday to completely withhold Special Counsel Robert Mueller's unredacted report from Congress if House Democrats decide to move ahead with plans to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt.

 

The department said in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler any move by Democrats to hold Barr in contempt would compel Barr to "request that the President invoke executive privilege" over the unredacted materials in Mueller's report that the Democrats previously subpoenaed.

 

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Paul Tait)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-08

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

What are you afaraid of Donald?you have been saying no collusion no obstruction what gives??

I thought he Justice Department was there to serve the American people? Oh well, silly me ....

The Art of the Deal guy who it turned out was the Art of the Fail guy when he lost more money than anyone else in the USA over 10 years.

 

The self-made man who it turns out had inherited a massive fortune from his father.

 

So why is anyone surprised that he will claim privelege. He has already used White Privelege, Rich Guy Privelege and Self-Made Man privelege and so now he is going to go for Presidential Privelege.

 

America, is Trump all you got?

For a report which offers "total exoneration", according to trump, one would think he'd want the full unredacted report released to the public. 

 

That he, and his minions, seek to muzzle the report, obfuscate its findings, prevent McGahn, Mueller, et al. from testifying, seems oddly curious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 20197 yr by mtls2005

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The U.S. Justice Department threatened on Tuesday to completely withhold Special Counsel Robert Mueller's unredacted report from Congress if House Democrats decide to move ahead with plans to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt.

Who exactly in DOJ would withhold the Mueller report?

As Barr would be the defendant, as per DOJ guidelines so often cited by Trump's AG's, and must recuse himself from any decisions where he has a conflict of interest such as did AG Sessions in the Russian investigation by Special Council. Then it would be Deputy AG Rosenstein's decision.

IF Barr says that DOJ guidelines don't apply, then Mueller should charge Trump with obstruction of justice. Catch-22.

Why don't the people that want the full report change the law that Grand Jury testimony is not to be released.  No lets just force the Justice Department to break the law we passed.

Anything to stop the truth from emerging. They're obviously scared of something to go to these lengths.

1 hour ago, HappyinNE said:

Why don't the people that want the full report change the law that Grand Jury testimony is not to be released.

 

Again, for a report which "totally exonerates" trump, one would think that he would be one of the persons most interested in having the full report released?

 

That said, Congress at a minimum should receive the complete, unredacted report along with any details on grand jury testimony.

 

Congress has managed twice to obtain federal grand jury information in prior special counsel investigations, as Nadler noted in an April 11 letter to Barr:

 

In every other instance where a federal grand jury was used to probe the alleged misconduct of a sitting president—namely, in the Watergate and Starr investigations—the Department of Justice worked with the relevant federal court to release the grand jury information to the House Judiciary Committee.  

 

1 hour ago, HappyinNE said:

change the law

 

1 hour ago, HappyinNE said:

break the law

 

Not really a law. More like "rules", which the AG could override...

 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

 

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

 

In addition, a judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings can authorize disclosure of a grand jury matter for certain purposes, including:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;
(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;
(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;
(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or
(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.

 

 

If completely "innocent" just release everything. Otherwise, it looks like you're guilty.

Came here for the TDS posts and I am not disappointed!!

Trump haters simply cannot accept the results of the 2016 election.

 

Donald J. Trump is the duly-elected President of the United States.

1 minute ago, Kelsall said:

Trump haters simply cannot accept the results of the 2016 election.

 

Donald J. Trump is the duly-elected President of the United States.

Yes, he is the duly-elected President and my hat's off to him for being able to pull this off. He is a scammer of the first class-order and there is a lot of respect due to him for being such a world class con artist. I do admit that.

8 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Trump haters simply cannot accept the results of the 2016 election.

 

Actually, it seems like its trump supporters who, perhaps as a result of losing the popular vote, and getting some help, and squeaking by on 77,000 votes across three states, who seem to continually harp on the results of the 2016 presidential election. Everyone else has accepted it.

 

May be an odd response to guilt?

 

I don't hate trump just feel sorry for him, his family, supporters who were fooled by a tacky used-car salesman, and the republicans who've gone all in on him.

 

 

 

 

"This is kook-land"...

 

 

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Again, for a report which "totally exonerates" trump, one would think that he would be one of the persons most interested in having the full report released?

 

That said, Congress at a minimum should receive the complete, unredacted report along with any details on grand jury testimony.

 

Congress has managed twice to obtain federal grand jury information in prior special counsel investigations, as Nadler noted in an April 11 letter to Barr:

 

In every other instance where a federal grand jury was used to probe the alleged misconduct of a sitting president—namely, in the Watergate and Starr investigations—the Department of Justice worked with the relevant federal court to release the grand jury information to the House Judiciary Committee.  

 

 

 

Not really a law. More like "rules", which the AG could override...

 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

 

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

 

In addition, a judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings can authorize disclosure of a grand jury matter for certain purposes, including:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;
(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;
(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;
(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or
(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.

 

 

If completely "innocent" just release everything. Otherwise, it looks like you're guilty.

 Nonsense,It looks like he's guilty by the dem's.Can't take their politics serious . The AG follows the rules in the SC reg and rules set by a dem congress over 20 years ago! The rules say he makes the determination of conclusion. He has concluded ,No obstruction ,no conspiracy or coordination. He isn't the one who can't get over the results.It's in the dems interest to go to court ,not Barr's , he has concluded its over.

Edited May 8, 20197 yr by riclag

22 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Nonsense,It looks like he's guilty by the dem's. The AG follows the rules in the SC reg and rules set by a dem congress over 20 years ago! The rules say he makes the determination of conclusion. He has concluded ,No obstruction ,no conspiracy or coordination. He isn't the one who can't get over the results.It's in the dems interest to go to court ,not Barr's , he has concluded its over.

 

Sadly, hundreds of former DOJ bigwigs and lawyers disagree with Barr.  In writing.

 

Edit:  I wouldn't be surprised to see Barr on the dock next for obstruction and lying to Congress.

 

 

Edited May 8, 20197 yr by impulse

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Sadly, hundreds of former DOJ bigwigs and lawyers disagree with Barr.  In writing.

 

Former DOJ ,when and what administration! Lawyers since you give no source, I would have to guess less 0.5 %

Edited May 8, 20197 yr by riclag

14 minutes ago, riclag said:

Former DOJ ,when and what administration! Lawyers since you give no source I would have to guess less 0.5 %

 

More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he holds.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4743166de632

 

Up to 720 signatories now...  and rising.    From every administration since Ike*.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/who-signed-the-letter-asserting-trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-if-he-werent-president-and-what-they-hope-happens-next/2019/05/07/66744532-710b-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.880ee5800bfa

 

 

*  Ike, the last full term administration where people actually trusted the government.  But I digress...

 

 

Edited May 8, 20197 yr by impulse

8 hours ago, impulse said:

 

More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he holds.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4743166de632

 

Up to 720 signatories now...  and rising.    From every administration since Ike*.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/who-signed-the-letter-asserting-trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-if-he-werent-president-and-what-they-hope-happens-next/2019/05/07/66744532-710b-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.880ee5800bfa

 

 

*  Ike, the last full term administration where people actually trusted the government.  But I digress...

 

 

"The collusion case has been resolved. So why are they writing a letter?  Because these former federal prosecutors are liberals, or NeverTrumpers, or what have you … and they’re trying to pile on, to push for impeachment. So it is a purely political act".

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-former-federal-prosecutors-condemning-mueller/

 

"So, how do we keep the flames burning on this whole saga? Well, have some 350+ former prosecutors, Democratic and Republican, say Trump would've been charged with obstruction if he weren't president.  As we've seen, Republicans opposed to Trump can be just as cancerous as MSNBC". 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/05/06/what-that-former-prosecutors-letter-aimed-at-trump-really-did-concerning-this-rus-n2545922

"At the same time, some of Barr’s defenders have observed that the nominee could not commit to full disclosure of Mueller’s findings. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, told senators last month that the nominee could not commit in advance to releasing information he had not yet reviewed, in part because some of those findings could include grand jury or privileged information he would be precluded from disclosing".

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/14/kirkland-ellis-bill-barr-confirmed-as-attorney-general/

 

A few  key take aways to this,  was during Barr's confirmation, a letter was introduced by hundreds of lawyers opposing Barr's appointment!

Many of these lawyers especially pertaining to this case weren't involved in it .

 

 Lastly,the POTUS office is subjected to different rules ,he acted accordingly.Like Barr said during the senate hearing, the POTUS could of shut down this investigation for what Mr. Trump said was a  attempted Coup and would of been in his constitutional right as chief law enforcement officer of the USA

 

56 minutes ago, riclag said:

"The collusion case has been resolved. So why are they writing a letter?  Because these former federal prosecutors are liberals, or NeverTrumpers, or what have you … and they’re trying to pile on, to push for impeachment. So it is a purely political act".

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-former-federal-prosecutors-condemning-mueller/

 

"So, how do we keep the flames burning on this whole saga? Well, have some 350+ former prosecutors, Democratic and Republican, say Trump would've been charged with obstruction if he weren't president.  As we've seen, Republicans opposed to Trump can be just as cancerous as MSNBC". 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/05/06/what-that-former-prosecutors-letter-aimed-at-trump-really-did-concerning-this-rus-n2545922

"At the same time, some of Barr’s defenders have observed that the nominee could not commit to full disclosure of Mueller’s findings. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, told senators last month that the nominee could not commit in advance to releasing information he had not yet reviewed, in part because some of those findings could include grand jury or privileged information he would be precluded from disclosing".

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/14/kirkland-ellis-bill-barr-confirmed-as-attorney-general/

 

A few  key take aways to this,  was during Barr's confirmation, a letter was introduced by hundreds of lawyers opposing Barr's appointment!

Many of these lawyers especially pertaining to this case weren't involved in it .

 

 Lastly,the POTUS office is subjected to different rules ,he acted accordingly.Like Barr said during the senate hearing, the POTUS could of shut down this investigation for what Mr. Trump said was a  attempted Coup and would of been in his constitutional right as chief law enforcement officer of the USA

 

 

So, what you're saying is that hundreds of legal scholars and former DOJ folks opposed Barr's appointment, and now they're saying a very collective "Told you so"?

 

To your last sentence, wouldn't that mean Trump is above the law?  And that no president can be investigated if he chooses, in his capacity as the chief law enforcement officer, not to allow it?   Seems to fly in the face of the checks and balances set out in the founding documents with the 3 branches... and the 4th Estate.

 

Edited May 8, 20197 yr by impulse

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So, what you're saying is that hundreds of legal scholars and former DOJ folks opposed Barr's appointment, and now they're saying a very collective "Told you so"?

 

To your last sentence, wouldn't that mean Trump is above the law?  And that no president can be investigated if he chooses, in his capacity as the chief law enforcement officer, not to allow it?   Seems to fly in the face of the checks and balances set out in the founding documents with the 3 branches... and the 4th Estate.

 

 your opinion! Change the constitution, Turley,Barr, dershowitz use the law of the land  and many other constitutionalist  are in agreement the office has its own rules, the POTUS could of fired Mueller ! As for 6e they are also in agreement

Edited May 8, 20197 yr by riclag

13 hours ago, Tug said:

What are you afaraid of Donald?you have been saying no collusion no obstruction what gives??

what gives?

 

ITS OVER....turn the lights off when you leave

Someone has a lot to hide. 

 

What a shame and embarrassment he is for this country. 

Let’s hope the system holds up under this assault on democracy 

Troll posts removed.  

 

17 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Someone has a lot to hide. 

 

What a shame and embarrassment he is for this country. 

 

Rumor is that Don Jr. took the fifth during grand jury testimony.

 

One can understand why Barr, among others, is fighting so furiously to protect the president and his family...

 

The Attorney General’s second letter regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report stated that the report will be released to Congress and the public after Barr and his staff have made “redactions that are required.” He lists four categories for redaction: (1) grand jury material; (2) material that potentially compromises intelligence source and methods; (3) material that could affect “ongoing matters,” including ones the Special Counsel has referred to other parts of the Justice Department; and (4) “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” 

 

 

Taking the fifth never looks good...according to dad.

 

 

I've read the Mueller report in its entirety including most of the footnotes. When you consider the report in its totality, there's little question that Donald Trump should be removed from office as soon as possible. The administration's apathetic response to alarming Russian intervention, the sheer volume of contacts with Russian operatives during the campaign, and the open-and-shut evidence of obstruction of justice makes a compelling case that Trump is in bed with the Russians.

 

The Barr/Trump narrative that 'no Russian collusion' was found is a complete lie. It is also critically important to realize that many key witnesses lied, pleaded the fifth, were out of the country and could not be interviewed, etc. Trump refused to be interviewed and answered "can't remember" to key questions. Mueller stated that the main reason he couldn't prove conspiracy was that he couldn't identify evidence that there was a clear agreement in place. Other than that, there is a mountain of evidence that the Trump campaign and the Russians were operating hand in hand.

 

The fact that the 2020 election is fast approaching should not be used as an excuse for not aggressively moving forward to bring to justice a President who has likely committed multiple felonies.

On 5/8/2019 at 4:43 AM, Kelsall said:

Trump haters simply cannot accept the results of the 2016 election.

 

Donald J. Trump is the duly-elected President of the United States.

So was Nixon.

6 hours ago, quandow said:

So was Nixon.

 

Yes, Nixon won a huge re-election in 1972, every state except mine, and DC. (Hence our bumper stickers: Don't Blame me I'm from Massachusetts).

 

He fought investigations tooth and nail. "The Final Days" is a good (re-) read: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27512.The_Final_Days

 

He relented and released his tax returns.

 

He enjoyed broad support - more than trump - right up until two weeks before he resigned - from the Silent Majority.

 

His AG's mug-shot:

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Yes, Nixon won a huge re-election in 1972, every state except mine, and DC. (Hence our bumper stickers: Don't Blame me I'm from Massachusetts).

News travels faster and people are paying more attention nowadays. I believe Trump will be impeached before he even has a chance to run for a 2nd term.  That storm seems to be gathering strength as Trump circles the wagons. He would have been so much better off cheating in all his business dealings and screwing porn stars behind his wives' backs.

And yet on May 9 Trump said of the Mueller Report:

"that's the Bible."

But he adds:

1. The special counsel investigation was run by "17 or 18 very angry Democrats who hated Donald Trump."

2. "Bob Mueller's no friend of mine, I had conflicts with him."

3. " You look at the picture file and you see hundreds of pictures of [Mueller] and Comey."

 

So while Trump holds Mueller and everyone who worked for him as being deeply corrupt and hate Trump, the report they produced should not be questioned - except of course where Trump himself has repeatedly questioned the findings of the report.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/09/politics/donald-trump-mueller-report-bible/index.html

Hard to believe that Trump recently attended Melanai's "Be Best" anniversary celebration.