Reply With Quote
Guy who hazed Iran-Contra good now.
Barr says he's redacting Mueller's report for four things:
-Grand jury info
-Intel sources/methods
-Ongoing investigations
-"Reputational interests" of "peripheral third parties"
Guy who hazed Iran-Contra good now.
: )
What is he afraid of?
Why is he burying everything he can?
Just stop. You don't fool me.
Your ex-GOD Mueller is working with Barr on the redactions dip .
Why redact - if it is going to Congress?
Congress is authorized to have 100%.
Has Trump publicly denounced Putin for Russia's attack?
Has OJ found the "killers?"
Putin telling Trump to stfu
why won't trump denounce Russia?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ve-troops.html
It’s being redacted for the public you dip .Why redact - if it is going to Congress?
Congress is authorized to have 100%.
Has Trump publicly denounced Putin for Russia's attack?
Has OJ found the "killers?"
cover up
Letter from AG Barr 3.29.19
MARCH 29, 2019
Dear Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler,
I write in response to Chairman Nadler’s March 25, 2019 letter and Chairman Graham’s March 27, 2019 letter, which addressed the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III and the “confidential report” he has submitted to me pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c).
As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and the public have the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report. We are preparing the report for release, making the redactions that are required. The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process. Specifically, we are well along in the process of identifying and redacting the following: (1) material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices; and (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties. Our progress is such that I anticipate we will be in a position to release the report by mid-April, if not sooner. Although the President would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review.
Also, I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019 supplemental notification as a “summary” of the Special Counsel’s investigation and report. For example, Chairman Nadler’s March 25 letter refers to my supplemental notification as a “four-page summary of the Special Counsel’s review.” My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel’s investigation or report. As my letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the public provided, pending release of the report, a summary of its “principal conclusions” – that is, its bottom line. The Special Counsel’s report is nearly 400 pages long (exclusive of tables and appendices) and sets forth the Special Counsel’s findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions. Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.
As I have discussed with both of you, I believe it would be appropriate for me to testify publicly on behalf of the Department shortly after the Special Counsel’s report is made public. I am currently available to testify before the Senate Judicary Committee on May 1, 2019 and before the House Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2019.
Finally, in the interests of keeping the public informed as to these matters, I intend to make this letter public after delivering it to you.
"Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own."
It’s being redacted for the public you dip .
Letter from AG Barr 3.29.19
MARCH 29, 2019
Dear Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler,
I write in response to Chairman Nadler’s March 25, 2019 letter and Chairman Graham’s March 27, 2019 letter, which addressed the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III and the “confidential report” he has submitted to me pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c).
As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and the public have the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report. We are preparing the report for release, making the redactions that are required. The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process. Specifically, we are well along in the process of identifying and redacting the following: (1) material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices; and (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties. Our progress is such that I anticipate we will be in a position to release the report by mid-April, if not sooner. Although the President would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review.
Also, I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019 supplemental notification as a “summary” of the Special Counsel’s investigation and report. For example, Chairman Nadler’s March 25 letter refers to my supplemental notification as a “four-page summary of the Special Counsel’s review.” My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel’s investigation or report. As my letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the public provided, pending release of the report, a summary of its “principal conclusions” – that is, its bottom line. The Special Counsel’s report is nearly 400 pages long (exclusive of tables and appendices) and sets forth the Special Counsel’s findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions. Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.
As I have discussed with both of you, I believe it would be appropriate for me to testify publicly on behalf of the Department shortly after the Special Counsel’s report is made public. I am currently available to testify before the Senate Judicary Committee on May 1, 2019 and before the House Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2019.
Finally, in the interests of keeping the public informed as to these matters, I intend to make this letter public after delivering it to you.
You stupid re ed idiot -
CONGRESS needs a full 100% unredacted copy.
Congress can redact before releasing it to the public.
Congress has to do its job and review it to see EVERYTHING.
ing moron.
Barr is playing games. All he has to do - which the piece of should have done already -
is ask a Federal judge to allow the Grand Jury info to be released.
He is playing cover up because he is protecting the traitors and criminals - just like you are doing.
redactions are completely normal/standard... no need to be throwing a fit until we get the release. unless they redact literally blocks of pages at a time, there shouldnt be any issues with it.
spurshomer is just preemptively upset over what he hasn't seen yet
Agreed.
Also, re-Trump "being on the attack" not sure it means much, tbh, this is the guy that retained Cohen's services for years. One thing is pretty clear, he doesn't understand a thing about law or good judgement.
No.
There is a reason.
Since DOJ "policy" states that a sitting president cannot be indicted - there is only one or two options.
1) Someone has to challenge this policy and indict him and test it in the courts. No one out there has the balls to follow through on this - so it only leaves one possible option...
2) CONGRESS - is the last option and if CONGRESS is the last and only option - then it is absolutely necessary for Congress to have 100% of the Mueller report. This is why I am stating that 100% has to be released.
They can redact it for the public - but Congress absolutely has a legal right to all of it because they have a job to do.
Barr citing any other rules or DOJ laws is a sham - because if you already decided a sitting president is not going to be indicted and then you go further - by handcuffing Congress - then you are a piece of trying to put YOUR beliefs into the legal system. Barr is not the ing decider here.
Why are they still "worried" after the "exoneration?"
Because the "cover up" is crumbling...
Run your troll schtick on someone else. I'm not going to waste my time even reading your posts.
but Trash and his chosen coverup AG are ABnormal
all the redactions will be only to protect Trash
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-30-2019 at 01:33 PM.
What coverup? What's the evidence you have? Dead serious, I will read and listen to your arguments with respect if you can cut the Boots-lite schtick and rage when spelling these arguments out.
1) Trump harasses Sessions and publicly states that he needs a "Roy Cohn" to protect him.
2) Trump fires Sessions because Sessions in unable to protect him.
3) Barr - who has already covered for two Republican presidents in past scandals - writes a 19 page memo - detailing why a president is above the law - Barr was not even in gov't at the time - just out of the blue -
4) Trump installs him as AG. In his confirmation hearing Barr is asked, "if the ethics commission recommends that you recuse from the Russia investigation based on their findings that it would be unethical for you to remain - will you follow their advice and recuse so as to remove any appearance of impropriety?" Barr answered that he would not recuse or would not recuse if he decided he didn't want to. They followed up with this question, "on what basis would you refuse - if they just advised you that it would be in the public interest to recuse and it would create an appearance of bias - why would you still refuse?" Barr said because he would not agree with their facts. They persisted - "but if their recommendation was based on FACTS - how can you credibly sit here and say you would dispute their facts?" - Barr: "On the basis that I disagreed with the facts!"
5) Barr gets the Mueller report and buries it. Barr gives a summary and when Barr states that "mueller did not decide on obstruction - SO I AM DECIDING that Trump is not guilty of obstruction - then Barr has just placed his thumb on the scale - rather than to lawfully and rightfully allow Congress to do its cons utional duty to decide on Trump obstruction of justice - AFTER reviewing Mueller's FACTS.
6) Barr gives Trump a weeks - or months - long head start into spinning the "completely exonerated" narrative so that people like you can parrot the "mueller exonerated him" bull .
7) Barr is now deciding the fate of a nation by burying the Mueller report - and by burying parts of the report using DOJ guidelines - which DO NOT APPLY - if you:
a) conclude that a president cannot be indicted
b) the only recourse would be Congress - which would - by law - be REQUIRED to have 100% of the facts of the case to be able to fulfill its cons utional duty - but BARR is saying to Congress - "I am following these rules - and have to redact this and that - so sorry - you cannot see what I see - even though I cannot indict and I also cannot allow you to investigate properly...etc"
So is BARR - who was hand-picked by Trump to be his "roy cohn" the person who is the "ultimate arbiter" of USA Justice?
If Obama had colluded with Iran and then fired the FBI director and then invited the Mullahs to the Oval office and bragged about firing the "nut job" fbi director to ease the Iran/Obama scandal investigation -
and then a special counsel was appointed and Obama hired Eric Holder to "protect him" and then the media pointed out 50-100 instances of public collusion and public obstruction of justice by Obama -
and when the SC issued his findings -
Eric Holder would bury the report and issue a summary saying:
"obama did not obstruct (even though you saw it with your own eyes!) and the SC found evidence of collusion- (which you also saw with your own eyes!) but just not enough - so - nothing to see here and stop being sore losers - just exonerate Lord Obama!
You would not see a cover up there?
That's all fair and valid. +3.
Just giving you a courtesy response -
I am just saying -
100% of the Mueller report and Mueller testifying under oath in front of the nation -is the fair and righteous thing to do.
If Mueller's testimony and his 100% of his report exonerates Trump - I will agree with Mueller's assessment.
I just do not agree that what Trump/Barr concocted is going to fly and having been lied to by Trump - thousands of times -
nor should ANYONE take his word at all when dealing with such an important issue.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
