Willian Barr is a Traitor

**TSA** · 04-11-2019

Or 6(e)(3)(E)(i) given Nadler's subpoena arguably is a legal proceeding. Certainly any court fight on quashing the subpoena would be a legal proceeding.

Nadler's subpoena is DOA, it became the DOJ's investigation once Mueller was appointed.

**vy65** · 04-11-2019

Interestingly enough, there is a pe ion for review pending before the Texas Supreme Court concerning the question of whether a subpoena cons utes a "legal proceeding" for purposes of the TCPA.

**Chris** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by Reck

Dude you posted a 53 minute conspiracy video just yesterday.

1.) You didn't watch it because it was all based on fact.

2.) Dude, you should watch stuff before you write it off as a conspiracy. Dude, you're like totally a useful idiot, dude.

**vy65** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

Nadler's subpoena is DOA, it became the DOJ's investigation once Mueller was appointed.

Fascinating. You have any legal authority that means this isn't a legal proceeding under the Rule?

**vy65** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

Nadler's subpoena is DOA, it became the DOJ's investigation once Mueller was appointed.

Oh and what about 6(e)(3)(A)(i)?

**TSA** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by vy65

Fascinating. You have any legal authority that means this isn't a legal proceeding under the Rule?

No I'm still waiting to hear the results on the review pending before the Texas Supreme Court concerning the question of whether a subpoena cons utes a "legal proceeding" for purposes of the TCPA.

**Chris** · 04-11-2019

"Federal law bars the release of material presented to a grand jury, including testimony and evidence, to protect the rights of the accused."

**vy65** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

No I'm still waiting to hear the results on the review pending before the Texas Supreme Court concerning the question of whether a subpoena cons utes a "legal proceeding" for purposes of the TCPA.

You'll be happy to find out that they asked for merits briefing on the subject. Oh and btw, the PFR is about a third-party subpoena. There are court of appeals decisions holding that a party seeking to quash a subpoena is a legal proceeding.

**vy65** · 04-11-2019

So to recap, TSA (A) admits that the government abuses its power to redact information under the guise of privilege (B) doesn't address whether Barr has an incentive to do so for Trump and (C) drops the

rule of law

bit when I give him two avenues for Barr to disclose the full report if, you know, he wasn't a political pawn.

**vy65** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by Chris

"Federal law bars the release of material presented to a grand jury, including testimony and evidence, to protect the rights of the accused."

The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter ...

hris

**TSA** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by vy65

This make no sense (you've seen information redacted by Mueller??). But, taken at your word, you've conceded that redactions get abused - do you think Trump's appointee serving at the pleasure of the president will or won't abuse the pretense of privilege?

The AG swore an oath to uphold the cons ution. I've given two examples of how he could use exceptions under Rule 6(e) to authorize disclosure. But please, continue to lecture me on procedural technicalities.

I'm not lecturing you at all stop acting so butthurt. Why do you feel it necessary that exceptions be made in this case concerning grand jury testimony instead of following the procedures set in place after the Clinton/Starr debacle?

**vy65** · 04-11-2019

Originally Posted by TSA

I'm not lecturing you at all stop acting so butthurt. Why do you feel it necessary that exceptions be made in this case concerning grand jury testimony instead of following the procedures set in place after the Clinton/Starr debacle?

Wow, and here I thought you knew what was going on. Let me explain why I've directly answered your question.

After the Starr Report, the CFR was amended to allow disclosure of the Special Counsel's report "to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions." 28 CFR 600.9. Those restrictions - what you're calling procedures - are contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Rule 6(e) contains the exceptions I'm talking about. I feel the need to talk about those exceptions because those are part of the "applicable legal restrictions" you keep harping about under the guise of "post-Clinton/Starr procedures."

Exceptions to disclosure rules are common. The attorney-client privilege rule has all kinds of disclosure exceptions (i.e., crime fraud). Rule 6(e) is no different. To Pav's point, this isn't some big ask -- it's literally written into the post-Clinton/Starr procedures you keep emphasizing.