What legal standing does Barr have to NOT release Mueller's report to Congress?

[Lesh]

Ac

To which the only reply need be, "It's coming.

NO dimwit.......the ISSUE here is WHAT "is coming".....Sure something will be coming...but it CANNOT be what Trump's stooges determine we should know of the report.....

The quicksand will be when Barr is subpoenaed before a House committee

Actually Barr will lie and obfuscate. I'd like to see Mueller testify.

He won't lie for Trump

 

[bendog]

Ac

To which the only reply need be, "It's coming.

NO dimwit.......the ISSUE here is WHAT "is coming".....Sure something will be coming...but it CANNOT be what Trump's stooges determine we should know of the report.....

The quicksand will be when Barr is subpoenaed before a House committee

Actually Barr will lie and obfuscate. I'd like to see Mueller testify.

He won't lie for Trump

I think they want to get Barr on record first as having produced a report with only redactions based on natl security and protecting sources.

Congress can impeach an AG for obstruction.

Not to say Barr will lie, but as Reagan said "trust but verify"

 

[Faun]

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

Your claims are silly since they are not even remotely comparable. For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public. From Wikipedia:

"Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. "

The report ended up being mostly about sex stuff.

This is NOT a legal precedence, because they are as different as night and day.

So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?

Oh...

You are simply too dumb to understand what I posted, I actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary.

Here it is again that you must have skimmed over:

"For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public."

They are NOT comparable investigations which you apparently know is true since you didn't dispute it.

Huh? What in your post indicated you actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary?

I read parts of it years ago, which is why I think the whole thing was unnecessary, but here it is for YOU to read:

The Starr Report

LINK

I didn’t ask you if you think it was unnecessary, nor did I ask you for s link to it.

I asked you what in your previous post (#654) indicated you think it was unnecessary?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your claims are silly since they are not even remotely comparable. For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public. From Wikipedia:

"Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. "

The report ended up being mostly about sex stuff.

This is NOT a legal precedence, because they are as different as night and day.

So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?

Oh...

You are simply too dumb to understand what I posted, I actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary.

Here it is again that you must have skimmed over:

"For one thing the Grand Jury Testimony was not with Trump himself, but with others who are NOT likely charged with Election tampering, another thing are those classified sections in it, that are classified for a reason. Neither part can be released to the public since this report is about Trump and his campaign members. Meanwhile Clinton the SAME DAY of his Grand Jury testimony talked to the nation about it, which of course means he places no restriction on it being released in the Starr report, having already talked to the nation about it.

The Starr report was delivered straight to congress who sat on it for a couple days before releasing it to the public by overwhelming bipartisan yes vote. There was nothing in it to be legally required to be blanked out, which is why the whole report was released to the public."

They are NOT comparable investigations which you apparently know is true since you didn't dispute it.

Huh? What in your post indicated you actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary?

I read parts of it years ago, which is why I think the whole thing was unnecessary, but here it is for YOU to read:

The Starr Report

LINK

I didn’t ask you if you think it was unnecessary, nor did I ask you for s link to it.

I asked you what in your previous post (#654) indicated you think it was unnecessary?

You replied to post 658, with your question, thus you got my answer. Now say it was about post 654, which you earlier failed to specifically mention.

As I pointed out to YOU, that I read it years ago which is WHY I think the investigation was unnecessary. That was my answer to YOU, not to her, for I answered her differently for a reason that eludes you... apparently since it was a statement in itself.

"You are simply too dumb to understand what I posted, I actually think the Starr investigation was wrong and unnecessary."

The rest of the post doesn't talk about why I thought the Star report was unnecessary it was about the difference between two investigations.

Neither me or her argued if the Starr report was necessary, thus you are the one looking for something that didn't transpire between me and her.

 

[Markle]

Then why did Donald say he was OK releasing it?
You're inferring that Donald doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I'd agree with you.


I'm just fucking with you. You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

It is being released, what is your problem?

 

[candycorn]

With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)

So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

The laws have changed since then.

Link?

 

[Markle]

Because for one, there would be third parties named in the report who were not indicted. Yes, Barr was doing the right thing by trying to sort out the details before releasing. No matter what you say, that is completely within the law, but now after 2 years the Dems are suddenly all out of patience.

I appreciate your effort in explaining the facts of life to our Progressive friends. At the same time, they know this from before this thread was ever started as well as numerous times in this thread. They just don't care.

They're just so filled with hate and vitriol that they can't even see straight. NOTHING President Trump or any Republican will be wrong according to the far left.

Unless they post something so outrageous that it is just wrong not to contest, I ignore and laugh at them.

Thank you for your time and trouble!

 

[Lesh]

Then why did Donald say he was OK releasing it?
You're inferring that Donald doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I'd agree with you.


I'm just fucking with you. You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

It is being released, what is your problem?

Really? How much? When?

No idea?

No kidding

 

[mikegriffith1]

Gosh, do you know what a grand jury proceeding is? You know that much of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? And you know that a good chunk of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? Who do you think classified the Mueller report?

 

[Lesh]

Again...nothing precludes a full release to Congress other than asking for the Grand Jury stuff to be released from the judge.

Releasing that to Congress is unremarkable and common.

 

[Lesh]

Gosh, do you know what a grand jury proceeding is? You know that much of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? And you know that a good chunk of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? Who do you think classified the Mueller report?

And YOU know that getting it released to Congress has been done numerous times including Watergate

 

[Sunsettommy]

Gosh, do you know what a grand jury proceeding is? You know that much of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? And you know that a good chunk of the Mueller report is grand jury material, right? Who do you think classified the Mueller report?

And YOU know that getting it released to Congress has been done numerous times including Watergate

Here is an excellent example of Lesh overt dishonesty, since she was schooled on the Watergate events in the 1970's a few hours ago which she has ignored ever since:

Post 668

There I pointed out that Nixon was out of the White House a year when he did the Grand Jury testimony. which was made available to the public THIRTY SIX YEARS LATER, Nixon had been dead for 17 years. Nixon was going to be IMPEACHED if he stayed in the office, which he knew was going to happen, which is WHY he resigned in August 1974.

Also told this other fact free person at another post about the Starr report, Post 654 which Lesh made this dead on arrival statement,

"So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?

Oh... "

My reply at post 658, which she has ignored so far.

From what factory do these stupid people come from......................................

 

[bendog]

Again...nothing precludes a full release to Congress other than asking for the Grand Jury stuff to be released from the judge.

Releasing that to Congress is unremarkable and common.

And there's little reason to preserve secrecy of grand jury testimony AFTER an investigation is closed. If Barr tries it, the motivation will be clear. protect the fat asses asses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again...nothing precludes a full release to Congress other than asking for the Grand Jury stuff to be released from the judge.

Until you can explain how you know the law better than the AGs office, your opinion does not matter.

 

[hadit]

With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)

So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?

None.

Start’s Report was released almost immediately.

It’s time to decouple the DOJ from the Executive branch.

The laws have changed since then.

Link?

https://www.google.com/amp/time.com/5558083/mueller-report-release-starr/?amp=true

 

[Markle]

So if it’s about sex, It can be released to the public but if it’s about national security the public should be kept in the dark?

Oh...

At the time, if you recall, Democrats were whining that it was ONLY sex and none of our business. Also, since it was a Lawinski and not sexual intercourse, it wasn't even really sex.

Do you NOT believe that issues of National Security should be kept from all of Congress and all the public?

 

[Lesh]

There I pointed out that Nixon was out of the White House a year when he did the Grand Jury testimony. which was made available to the public THIRTY SIX YEARS LATER,

The Grand Jury Testimony was provided to Congress months before Nixon resigned. what are you talking about?

And yes...it was kept from the public for decades...which says that YES it can safely be released to Congress

 

[Lesh]

Do you NOT believe that issues of National Security should be kept from all of Congress and all the public?

WTF? No I do NOT believe that National Security issues should be kept from Congress. That's a stupid claim

 

[Uncensored2008]

Barr will release the report once he finishes redacting whatever information is required by law.
So, you'll see it when you see it, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The Stalinists don't care about law. Law has no power over democrats, they are not bound by it nor subject to penalties for violating the law. They want POWER, they demand Barr violate the law so they can expand their power and THEN CRUCIFY HIM FOR DOING WHAT THEY DEMAND.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, you're partially correct.......SANITY will never sway the Trump CULT membership of about 34% of the population...........Do all of you cult members get a free MAGA hat???

Was your pink pussy hat free?

Did you have to prove your estrogen level confirming you're a democrat, first?