You do not think that when the Democrats subpoena it, there will be a huge court fight to keep it hidden? Do you want to make a wager on that?
Trump to edit the report before release...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
You do not think that when the Democrats subpoena it, there will be a huge court fight to keep it hidden? Do you want to make a wager on that?
"Special counsel Robert Mueller's team issued more than 2,800 subpoenas and executed nearly 500 search warrants in its probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election and any potential involvement by President Donald Trump's campaign.
That's according to Attorney General William Barr's letter to Congress on Sunday summarizing the findings. The special counsel employed 19 lawyers and was assisted by a team of 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff. The team interviewed approximately 500 witnesses."
Case closed, no collusion or evidence of obstruction.
That's according to Attorney General William Barr's letter to Congress on Sunday summarizing the findings. The special counsel employed 19 lawyers and was assisted by a team of 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff. The team interviewed approximately 500 witnesses."
Case closed, no collusion or evidence of obstruction.
Chicago Tribune:
"The public will see something, but how much and when is unknown. Barr said in his letter that being "mindful of the public interest," his "goal and intent is to release as much" of the report as he can, consistent with the law.
That means scrubbing the report of any information that could compromise the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, as well as any material that could affect other ongoing investigations or prosecutions. Mueller has referred several matters to other prosecutors, and those inquiries are still underway.
The attorney general said he has asked Mueller and the Justice Department to begin the process of identifying such material so it can be redacted, but a speedy timetable is unlikely."
"The public will see something, but how much and when is unknown. Barr said in his letter that being "mindful of the public interest," his "goal and intent is to release as much" of the report as he can, consistent with the law.
That means scrubbing the report of any information that could compromise the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, as well as any material that could affect other ongoing investigations or prosecutions. Mueller has referred several matters to other prosecutors, and those inquiries are still underway.
The attorney general said he has asked Mueller and the Justice Department to begin the process of identifying such material so it can be redacted, but a speedy timetable is unlikely."
jimmymccready
Verified User
Let Trump edit the report.
That will guarantee the report will be released.
That will guarantee the report will be released.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Stretch,
Acid test time.
Somehow I think you would feel differently if it were President Hillary doing it.
A little birdie told me.
Yup. A president can do that.
Why don't YOU go and be a president?
Acid test time.
Somehow I think you would feel differently if it were President Hillary doing it.
A little birdie told me.
A huge cover-up.
If Rump could be truly exonerated by having the report released, don't you think it would have been released?
Its telling to me that he declared exoneration on the flimsy 4 page report by Barr, considering if truly exonerated he could have declared it based on something substantive.
If Rump could be truly exonerated by having the report released, don't you think it would have been released?
Its telling to me that he declared exoneration on the flimsy 4 page report by Barr, considering if truly exonerated he could have declared it based on something substantive.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Darth,
And we are supposed to believe you that Robert Mueller is respectable enough to do this, why?
You can't even bring yourself to use his actual name.
Besides. His reputation depends on being impartial. Why would he publicly jump into something political? That goes against his better nature. We can't depend on him for that. We need verified accountability.
You have typified the right in showing that if this really happened the way you suggest? If Trump rewrote the report, and Mueller said: "That's not what the report said," the right would not believe Mueller, would go right back to trashing him personally they way you always have.
Ya see how that works?
That's why I have been telling you all along that if you disrespect somebody's name, then you lose credibility. It becomes baseless bias. It's biased intent. No question of it.
When we disrespect others, we are really disrespecting ourselves.
We should hold ourselves higher than that.
We should take a position; and take it for a good reason. If anybody questions that position, then you have your good reason. You don't need anything more.
You don't have to put down others. You don't have to suggest that anything but your good reason is needed.
You just have to make sure you have a strong good reason.
Everything else is fog.
You don't have a good reason, so you're throwing up fog. 'Mullet.' What's THAT? A fish? No. It's fog. It will drift off in time. A good reason stands.
We've got a good reason. The President works for us. We need to see the report, not a doctored up version.
And we are supposed to believe you that Robert Mueller is respectable enough to do this, why?
You can't even bring yourself to use his actual name.
Besides. His reputation depends on being impartial. Why would he publicly jump into something political? That goes against his better nature. We can't depend on him for that. We need verified accountability.
You have typified the right in showing that if this really happened the way you suggest? If Trump rewrote the report, and Mueller said: "That's not what the report said," the right would not believe Mueller, would go right back to trashing him personally they way you always have.
Ya see how that works?
That's why I have been telling you all along that if you disrespect somebody's name, then you lose credibility. It becomes baseless bias. It's biased intent. No question of it.
When we disrespect others, we are really disrespecting ourselves.
We should hold ourselves higher than that.
We should take a position; and take it for a good reason. If anybody questions that position, then you have your good reason. You don't need anything more.
You don't have to put down others. You don't have to suggest that anything but your good reason is needed.
You just have to make sure you have a strong good reason.
Everything else is fog.
You don't have a good reason, so you're throwing up fog. 'Mullet.' What's THAT? A fish? No. It's fog. It will drift off in time. A good reason stands.
We've got a good reason. The President works for us. We need to see the report, not a doctored up version.
Get a clue.
The full report must be redacted to protect sources and methods, classified information and material covered by Executive Privilege.
This is the law, also the rules as set by the Justice Department for release of SC reports.
A/G Barr:
"Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter(s) occurring before (a) grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function."
"Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter(s) occurring before (a) grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function."
So why does the White House have to add its redaction.... Looks like Justice could handle that.
He is probably trying to protect HRC...........
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Darth,
Yeah. Let me take a wild guess. You don't want to know if the President did anything illegal. If he really did, and it sure looks like he did for many many reasons, you don't want to know about it, don't want to hear about the possibility, and certainly want it buried if it's true. You're determined to give him a free pass for breaking the law. You don't care if the President breaks the law as long as the DOW goes up and you get rich. And you think Trump is the best chance of that. You know in your heart he is a con man and you don't care, don't want to admit it out loud.
There is already testimony and evidence that the President broke campaign law, and since Republicans are willing to give Trump a free pass, they all believe Trump's version of the story, even though Cohen's is sworn testimony and the evidence supports it. (We saw the check.) You know that all the party has to do is unite around this false belief against evidence that Cohen lied under oath, so he can't be impeached for that. Simply amazing. Mass self-deception.
And there is a huge difference between 'no evidence' and insufficient evidence. HUGE difference!
You guys can fool yourselves. But * y o u * a r e * n o t * f o o l i n g * u s *.
This President needs to be brought to justice.
It falls upon every loyal American to see that this is done.
It is time for people to decide. What is more important? Party or country.
You're letting a guy off the hook who said he had no business dealings in Russia during the 2016 campaign, EVEN AS HE WAS TRYING TO GET A DEAL TO BUILD MOSCOW TRUMP TOWER!!!
Man. You guys are so busy looking the other way, you must need a lot of massages for all the sore necks.
Yeah. Let me take a wild guess. You don't want to know if the President did anything illegal. If he really did, and it sure looks like he did for many many reasons, you don't want to know about it, don't want to hear about the possibility, and certainly want it buried if it's true. You're determined to give him a free pass for breaking the law. You don't care if the President breaks the law as long as the DOW goes up and you get rich. And you think Trump is the best chance of that. You know in your heart he is a con man and you don't care, don't want to admit it out loud.
There is already testimony and evidence that the President broke campaign law, and since Republicans are willing to give Trump a free pass, they all believe Trump's version of the story, even though Cohen's is sworn testimony and the evidence supports it. (We saw the check.) You know that all the party has to do is unite around this false belief against evidence that Cohen lied under oath, so he can't be impeached for that. Simply amazing. Mass self-deception.
And there is a huge difference between 'no evidence' and insufficient evidence. HUGE difference!
You guys can fool yourselves. But * y o u * a r e * n o t * f o o l i n g * u s *.
This President needs to be brought to justice.
It falls upon every loyal American to see that this is done.
It is time for people to decide. What is more important? Party or country.
You're letting a guy off the hook who said he had no business dealings in Russia during the 2016 campaign, EVEN AS HE WAS TRYING TO GET A DEAL TO BUILD MOSCOW TRUMP TOWER!!!
Man. You guys are so busy looking the other way, you must need a lot of massages for all the sore necks.
Sounds likely.
The White House can (Obama did it many times) claim Executive Privilege for conversations and other communications that he deems Privileged.
Get over it, you lost the election and now have lost the "collusion" war.
I understand, but where is the check... What if Rump claims executive privilege where it does not apply in order to hide a particularly damaging action he took?
