Willian Barr is a Traitor

[TSA]

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.

Why do you feel it's necessary for Barr to release the grand jury testimony on people who were not charged with a crime? Why do you think the procedures were changed after Clinton/Starr?

[vy65]

Why do you feel it's necessary for Barr to release the grand jury testimony on people who were not charged with a crime? Why do you think the procedures were changed after Clinton/Starr?

I'm happy to answer these questions, but first, I want you to notice how the conversation is no longer about a) Barr (potentially-but-likely) abusing his privileges viz. the report or b) about the legality of disclosing the full/unredacted report after the changes to 28 CFR 600.9

At first the conversation was about whether it was legal in the first place. I showed that there's a clear path to disclosure. Now, the questions are about a) why should Barr release in the first place and b) why was 600.9 amended. Those are different questions. Agree?

[spurraider21]

I'm happy to answer these questions, but first, I want you to notice how the conversation is no longer about a) Barr (potentially-but-likely) abusing his privileges viz. the report or b) about the legality of disclosing the full/unredacted report after the changes to 28 CFR 600.9

At first the conversation was about whether it was legal in the first place. I showed that there's a clear path to disclosure. Now, the questions are about a) why should Barr release in the first place and b) why was 600.9 amended. Those are different questions. Agree?

SHOULD HE FOLLOW THE LAW YES OR NO

[vy65]

SHOULD HE FOLLOW THE LAW YES OR NO

[Chris]

muh fees and muh reuters herp derp

[ChumpDumper]

SHOULD HE FOLLOW THE LAW YES OR NO

HE SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW I WANT HIM TO FOLLOW AND NOT LAW I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT

[Reck]

I stopped conversing with TSA when he said he knew more than what Mueller was doing himself.

[ElNono]

Qhris doubling down on stupid per par

[TSA]

I'm happy to answer these questions, but first, I want you to notice how the conversation is no longer about a) Barr (potentially-but-likely) abusing his privileges viz. the report or b) about the legality of disclosing the full/unredacted report after the changes to 28 CFR 600.9

At first the conversation was about whether it was legal in the first place. I showed that there's a clear path to disclosure. Now, the questions are about a) why should Barr release in the first place and b) why was 600.9 amended. Those are different questions. Agree?

Never pretended they were the same questions. You're on a message board conversations are fluid. I'll be happy to read your answers to my questions.

[ChumpDumper]

HE SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW I WANT HIM TO FOLLOW AND NOT LAW I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT

[TSA]

I stopped conversing with TSA when he said he knew more than what Mueller was doing himself.

You were just conversing with me the other day you dip

Why do you have to lie to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know?

[Chris]

Why do you have to lie to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know?

[Reck]

You were just conversing with me the other day you dip

Why do you have to lie to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know?

Laughing at your stupid posts is not the same as me engaging in serious conversation with you.

You arguing with lawyers and thinking you have the higher ground or knowledge is funny to me.

[ChumpDumper]

you're trying to take credit for sayings other people started to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know.

[TSA]

Laughing at your stupid posts is not the same as me engaging in serious conversation with you.

You arguing with lawyers and thinking you have the higher ground or knowledge is funny to me.

You're still lying. Who are you trying to impress here?

[Reck]

You're still lying. Who are you trying to impress here?

Not a soul. Unlike you.

There must be a reason why you insist on knowing more than just about everyone else here. You're compensating and it is fairly obvious to everyone but you.

[TSA]

Not a soul. Unlike you.

There must be a reason why you insist on knowing more than just about everyone else here. You're compensating and it is fairly obvious to everyone but you.

If you are not trying to impress anyone why are you lying about conversing with me? It's so stupid and so easily disproven.

[vy65]

Never pretended they were the same questions. You're on a message board conversations are fluid. I'll be happy to read your answers to my questions.

Fair enough, I just want it to be clear that full/unredacted disclosure can and should be made and Barr's bs about what Rule 6(e) is understood to be just that - bs. Glad you agree now.

I think the public interest and need for full transparency on POTUS's end is a greater interest when balanced against the need for maintaining the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.

I'm no expert on why the procedures were changed after Starr. I don't like the changes. But I think they were made out of political exigency and not substantive policy.

[Chris]

I just wanted to flex some legalese copy pasta. Reuters and lawyer fees. Yee-haw.

[vy65]

I still can't afford VY's fee

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, Qhris's butt is hurt bad.

[TSA]

Fair enough, I just want it to be clear that full/unredacted disclosure can and should be made and Barr's bs about what Rule 6(e) is understood to be just that - bs. Glad you agree now.

I think the public interest and need for full transparency on POTUS's end is a greater interest when balanced against the need for maintaining the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.

I'm no expert on why the procedures were changed after Starr. I don't like the changes. But I think they were made out of political exigency and not substantive policy.

Why should people not charged with a crime have grand jury evidence released to be used against them politically?

[vy65]

Why should people not charged with a crime have grand jury evidence released to be used against them politically?

I told you, I think that the public interest/need for full transparency on POTUS is, when balanced, greater.

[boutons_deux]

As I quoted somebody's slam dunk plan for 2020 re-election:

give Dems the tax reports

give Dems the Mueller report

nothing will be found and thereby Trash would prove he is above board, innocent, bona fides through and through, a wonderful guy worthy of the people's respect, trust, and re-election.

[vy65]

This thread got quiet ...