The Mueller Report (with redactions by AG Barr) will be released on Thursday according to the Justice Department

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stinkles

343 Industries
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
16,021
The thing I am as worried about as I was when Barr was confirmed is a detail - Thursday is a strange day to release anything - good or bad.

Thursday release means there's time to create proper news stories about the content and the redactions and figure out meaningful stuff - cross-referenced with known items like "who Person 1 is" and so on.

Friday is a news dump tradition - but Friday NIGHT - so that the story dies on Saturday - and it's a tradition that Wall Street uses because the markets are closed. Friday is a long day for any desired narrative to get out of control - and worse - because it's a political story - both Dems and GOP will have a long time to figure out the Sunday morning plan for Meet the Press etc. And in a way, this creates a kind of Monday drop - because by then the angles will be decided and the information, legal and partisan quotes and tweets and news will become a launchpad. It will BEGIN Monday morning.

So why does that make me as nervous as Barr's original appointment? Because if it were damning to Trump and co, it would be sent to die on Friday night. If it were good news for them, it would be announced first thing monday morning - or maybe in time for the sunday morning shows. So I think there's a more complex plan in place - maybe giving oppoennts enough rope to hang themselves, or rope a dope.

It could also be as simple as "there was no good time" which makes me think the redaction total blackout parodies might actually be real.
 
OP
OP
ElectricBlanketFire
Oct 25, 2017
17,270
The thing I am as worried about as I was when Barr was confirmed is a detail - Thursday is a strange day to release anything - good or bad.

Thursday release means there's time to create proper news stories about the content and the redactions and figure out meaningful stuff - cross-referenced with known items like "who Person 1 is" and so on.

Friday is a news dump tradition - but Friday NIGHT - so that the story dies on Saturday - and it's a tradition that Wall Street uses because the markets are closed. Friday is a long day for any desired narrative to get out of control - and worse - because it's a political story - both Dems and GOP will have a long time to figure out the Sunday morning plan for Meet the Press etc. And in a way, this creates a kind of Monday drop - because by then the angles will be decided and the information, legal and partisan quotes and tweets and news will become a launchpad. It will BEGIN Monday morning.

So why does that make me as nervous as Barr's original appointment? Because if it were damning to Trump and co, it would be sent to die on Friday night. If it were good news for them, it would be announced first thing monday morning - or maybe in time for the sunday morning shows. So I think there's a more complex plan in place - maybe giving oppoennts enough rope to hang themselves, or rope a dope.

It could also be as simple as "there was no good time" which makes me think the redaction total blackout parodies might actually be real.
The markets will be closed on Good Friday.
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
17,381
The thing I am as worried about as I was when Barr was confirmed is a detail - Thursday is a strange day to release anything - good or bad.

Thursday release means there's time to create proper news stories about the content and the redactions and figure out meaningful stuff - cross-referenced with known items like "who Person 1 is" and so on.

Friday is a news dump tradition - but Friday NIGHT - so that the story dies on Saturday - and it's a tradition that Wall Street uses because the markets are closed. Friday is a long day for any desired narrative to get out of control - and worse - because it's a political story - both Dems and GOP will have a long time to figure out the Sunday morning plan for Meet the Press etc. And in a way, this creates a kind of Monday drop - because by then the angles will be decided and the information, legal and partisan quotes and tweets and news will become a launchpad. It will BEGIN Monday morning.

So why does that make me as nervous as Barr's original appointment? Because if it were damning to Trump and co, it would be sent to die on Friday night. If it were good news for them, it would be announced first thing monday morning - or maybe in time for the sunday morning shows. So I think there's a more complex plan in place - maybe giving oppoennts enough rope to hang themselves, or rope a dope.

It could also be as simple as "there was no good time" which makes me think the redaction total blackout parodies might actually be real.
If he just redacts everything meme-style then everyone will flip their shit
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,251
The color coding and justifications on each redaction, the summaries intended for public release and all the tools at each committee’s disposal means any attempt to play games will be obvious and addressable.
 

ZackieChan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,347
"This thing that totally exonnerates me was written by 18 Angry Democrats"
First it was 13, then 17, now 18? They keep adding Angry Democrats even after they wrapped it up!
Sure, but you're now assuming what it is they're going to say. I'm unsure what you're expecting in this "counter-report".
Yeah, since much of the claimed obstruction was done in public, they probably have a ton to go on without knowing specifics of what in the report. They were possibly briefed on what non-public obstruction evidence was in there.
I never said that, but I like that you've put words in my mouth. Sweet strategy, let's see if it pays off.
Add another Angry Democrat to the list!
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,725
Theoretically this is going to be a 400 page document, plus a 50+ page rebuttal from the White House.

Even if it's theoretically "dumped" before the holiday weekend, it would still take some time for the press and pundits to digest and react to.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,306
South Carolina
aka: THEY SAW IT, OR A SUMMARY OF IT, FIRST.

Brace yourself for manipulative fuckery folks. Yall should know the drill by now.

I mean, obviously not. But if they really are concerned about revealing things like intelligence collection methods, etc. (I know they aren't, but let's just say hypothetically), I could understand only letting a small group from Congress view the unredacted report. I mean, fuck, who has even seen the full report at this point? Is Barr the only one?
By law, the Gang of Eight has to see the full unredacted report. I keep worrying that having McConnell and Nunes in that listing is a threat if ongoing investigations and classified material is THAT damning beyond the WH, ya know?
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,306
South Carolina
Whatever bullshit that Barr is going to pull won't push the needle, just like with his summary.
Well, to be honest, at this point the Report should be saying in plain terms that the president is an unindicted coconspirator, or that a bajillion things were sent off to disctricts or states, and/or obstruction occured and Congress should see that to do their thing. It should, if it looks like from what we know, to go beyond just a scandal. IE, the question changer from "Why should we impeach the POTUS like you say we should?" to "Why SHOULDNT we impeach the POTUS like you say we shouldn't?" I'd thought we'd be in a world right now where gaggles of reporters are chasing GOP congresscritters around their offices asking that latter question, but Barr decided to try and thread the needle between The Law and The Lawlessness so it happens later.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,618
I never said that, but I like that you've put words in my mouth. Sweet strategy, let's see if it pays off.
you are arguing in bad faith. What do members of this board and what they say have anything to do with congress and their security clearance?

You also didn’t directly respond to anything I actually said in that post.

For instance, do you believe anyone in that report should be protected from ‘anything that would “unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” ‘?
 
Last edited:

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,251
For instance, do you believe anyone in that report should be protected from ‘anything that would “unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” ‘?
It’s typical DoJ policy not to reveal peripheral unindicted parties. Trump and his family will not be the only people or organizations in the report.
 

Metallix87

Member
Nov 1, 2017
9,659
you are arguing in bad faith. What do members of this board and what they say have anything to do with congress and their security clearance?

You also didn’t directly respond to anything I actually said in that post.

For instance, do you believe anyone in that report should be protected from ‘anything that would “unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” ‘?
I've stated my points pretty matter of factly. The onus is on you to keep up.

The report is being redacted for investigational reasons primarily. Unless you believe the preservation of our intelligence agencies' methods and their current investigations are wholly irrelevant, that counts for something. As far as "arguing in bad faith", I've done nothing of the sort. We've seen numerous Congresspeople suggest that the report needs to be made public immediately, without redaction. The board is wholly on board with that notion, so it would make nothing but sense, from my perspective, that you and others would be desperate to get it into the hands of what could be described as Congresspeople who may or may not be entirely interested in maintaining the redactions we're discussing private.

Now, I'm sure there's an argument to be made with regards to whether or not specific Congresspeople should be allowed to see the unredacted report, but that's neither here nor there. The argument was that there's a non-zero chance that the unredacted report could be leaked, and I'm saying that it's definitely possible, and something that I'm sure the Justice Department, beyond just Barr, is aware of.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,416
USA
I expect Trump to fly a "FULLY EXONERATED" banner come Thursday

When like over half of the report is redacted
 

Voyager

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,262
I've stated my points pretty matter of factly. The onus is on you to keep up.

The report is being redacted for investigational reasons primarily. Unless you believe the preservation of our intelligence agencies' methods and their current investigations are wholly irrelevant, that counts for something. As far as "arguing in bad faith", I've done nothing of the sort. We've seen numerous Congresspeople suggest that the report needs to be made public immediately, without redaction. The board is wholly on board with that notion, so it would make nothing but sense, from my perspective, that you and others would be desperate to get it into the hands of what could be described as Congresspeople who may or may not be entirely interested in maintaining the redactions we're discussing private.

Now, I'm sure there's an argument to be made with regards to whether or not specific Congresspeople should be allowed to see the unredacted report, but that's neither here nor there. The argument was that there's a non-zero chance that the unredacted report could be leaked, and I'm saying that it's definitely possible, and something that I'm sure the Justice Department, beyond just Barr, is aware of.
The report was redacted for the reasons you listed... by Mueller's team. Barr is taking it upon himself to delay and redact what he sees fit.

As far as the report being leaked, that’s a bullshit excuse. Not a valid reason for withholding the report from Congress. Why the hell would they leak any sensitive information? It sounds to me like Barr is afraid of Congress seeing the real report, including evidence, and comparing it to his redacted version.
 

Books

Alt account
Banned
Feb 4, 2019
2,180
Took an informal survey at the bar I frequent; nobody really cares about the report. However, there are very strong feelings about magic johnson being a bitch.

I wonder if this is the sentiment elsewhere.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,235
Exactly. I really doubt it's going to be feasible for Barr to hide much of anything here, given the nature of the report.
I’m not saying he’s not going to try, just pointing out that whether he goes for full fuckery should be pretty obvious. Considering Barr has already acted untrustworthy and has actively tried to muddy the narrative, there’s literally no reason to think he won’t continue to do so. If that means redacting some things here and there to drag the process out, there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t do that.
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,009
Texas
To the public, yes. If you want to prevent accusations of a cover up, you’d give Congress the full report. They are the check designed for this very situation.
Yeah Congress has the highest levels of clearance for this stuff. They can and should certainly be able to see the full report. It’s their job.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,251
To the public, yes. If you want to prevent accusations of a cover up, you’d give Congress the full report. They are the check designed for this very situation.
Yeah Congress has the highest levels of clearance for this stuff. They can and should certainly be able to see the full report. It’s their job.
I'm sure certain committees will have access to redacted sections, but the question of grand jury information isn't straight forward. There are exceptions for national security but otherwise congress isn't really entitled to see it.

Any attempts at playing games with the redactions though will be pretty clear and won't be subject to these kinds of restrictions if there's no underlying legal basis for them being redacted.
 

Voyager

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,262
I'm sure certain committees will have access to redacted sections, but the question of grand jury information isn't straight forward. There are exceptions for national security but otherwise congress isn't really entitled to see it.

Any attempts at playing games with the redactions though will be pretty clear and won't be subject to these kinds of restrictions if there's no underlying legal basis for them being redacted.
The question of grand jury information is clear. Barr needs to request the release from a judge, that’s it. He confirmed this in the hearing last week. He also confirmed that he has no intention to do so.
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,009
Texas
I'm sure certain committees will have access to redacted sections, but the question of grand jury information isn't straight forward. There are exceptions for national security but otherwise congress isn't really entitled to see it.

Any attempts at playing games with the redactions though will be pretty clear and won't be subject to these kinds of restrictions if there's no underlying legal basis for them being redacted.
He’s already playing games. Zero benefit of the doubt from me.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,251
The question of grand jury information is clear. Barr needs to request the release from a judge, that’s it. He confirmed this in the hearing last week. He also confirmed that he has no intention to do so.
The matter is not at all settled and courts have recently ruled judges don't have broad authority to release grand jury information outside the specific exceptions already laid out. Congress has options (including starting impeachment proceedings) but currently it's not at all clear a judge, even if asked, can release all grand jury related info.

He’s already playing games. Zero benefit of the doubt from me.
We need to see the report. The redactions are each color coded and justified. The report is very long so it will not be hard at all to tell if something appears improperly redacted.
 

Voyager

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,262
The matter is not at all settled and courts have recently ruled judges don't have broad authority to release grand jury information outside the specific exceptions already laid out. Congress has options (including starting impeachment proceedings) but currently it's not at all clear a judge, even if asked, can release all grand jury related info.
That’s not what Barr said last week. He said he could request the release but will not. In fact he basically said, if Nadler wants the info, to request it himself (which he doesn’t have the right to do, as far as I know).

Edit: it’s also not the precedent set by both Watergate and the Starr report.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,251
That’s not what Barr said last week. He said he could request the release but will not. In fact he basically said If Nadler wants the info to request it himself (which he doesn’t have the right to do, as far as I know).

Edit: it’s also not the precedent set by both Watergate and the Starr report.
The DC district court just ruled on April 5th that federal courts cannot authorize the disclosure of grand jury information outside the already defined exceptions.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,618
I've stated my points pretty matter of factly. The onus is on you to keep up.
No you absolutely have not. Your response to my post, which anyone can see, was to ignore pretty much everything I said and just mention that people on this board think members of congress would leak the report.

It’s right here https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-mueller-report-with-redactions-by-ag-barr-will-be-released-on-thursday-according-to-the-justice-department.111646/page-3#post-19869406

Which members of Congress have said they would leak the report unredacted?

I am not arguing that an unredacted report should be released to the public. An unredacted report should be released to members of congress who have the security clearance. Is there any reason to not allow people with the security clearance to see this report? I have yet to see any actual legitimate argument against it.
 
Feb 16, 2018
1,002
the way Democrats have handled the narrative around this report has been an awful strategy

the public who watches the crappy news on TV will be treating it as a court case and looking for a criminal conviction from the Trump lackeys / Republicans that run the FBI, Senate, and Justice Department

and when a criminal conviction by his own party doesn't happen, Trump gets to focus the conversation on how he's innocent, despite the fact that the report was never designed to facilitate criminal proceedings against the President

there will have been massive amounts of foreign interference and collusion and obstruction surrounding a president running for reelection, and the Democrats are probably going to get less out of it than what 2016 got from an email server
 

Don Fluffles

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,335
Ugggghhh
I don't see why Mueller can't just disobey the administration and leak the whole thing himself. Why play by the rules when those in charge will always twist them to their favor?
 

Jersey_Tom

Member
Dec 2, 2017
3,099
The thing I am as worried about as I was when Barr was confirmed is a detail - Thursday is a strange day to release anything - good or bad.

Thursday release means there's time to create proper news stories about the content and the redactions and figure out meaningful stuff - cross-referenced with known items like "who Person 1 is" and so on.

Friday is a news dump tradition - but Friday NIGHT - so that the story dies on Saturday - and it's a tradition that Wall Street uses because the markets are closed. Friday is a long day for any desired narrative to get out of control - and worse - because it's a political story - both Dems and GOP will have a long time to figure out the Sunday morning plan for Meet the Press etc. And in a way, this creates a kind of Monday drop - because by then the angles will be decided and the information, legal and partisan quotes and tweets and news will become a launchpad. It will BEGIN Monday morning.

So why does that make me as nervous as Barr's original appointment? Because if it were damning to Trump and co, it would be sent to die on Friday night. If it were good news for them, it would be announced first thing monday morning - or maybe in time for the sunday morning shows. So I think there's a more complex plan in place - maybe giving oppoennts enough rope to hang themselves, or rope a dope.

It could also be as simple as "there was no good time" which makes me think the redaction total blackout parodies might actually be real.
I don't think it's as complex as you're making it out to be.

The reasoning I think this is coming out Thursday is likely because Congress still won't be in session on Friday and many news outlets won't have their "A-Squad" working either, since this Friday also happens to be Good Friday, and thusly Easter weekend. While not a federal holiday, many outlets and states still view this weekend as an optional holiday that news can likely still be buried thanks to coming out on the last possible day before the "holiday" begins. So in this case at least, Thursday might as well be treated as a Friday for a news dump.
 

nexus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,346
No doubt congress should get the full unredacted report. That way if they feel there’s anything that Barr covered up and shouldn’t have they will directly know. Obviously that’s the right thing to do so that probably won’t happen.
 

ced

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,113
Ugggghhh
I don't see why Mueller can't just disobey the administration and leak the whole thing himself. Why play by the rules when those in charge will always twist them to their favor?
That's dumb for anyone to leak it unreacted.

They could leak their prepared public summaries though.
 
OP
OP
ElectricBlanketFire
Oct 25, 2017
17,270
Beware the wrath.


@MicahGrimes Some of dozen-plus White House officials interviewed by Special Counsel Mueller concerned about the president's "wrath" if they are seen as a source of damaging info in Thursday's real of the report, according to multiple witnesses in the investigation.
 

Stinkles

343 Industries
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
16,021
I don't think it's as complex as you're making it out to be.

The reasoning I think this is coming out Thursday is likely because Congress still won't be in session on Friday and many news outlets won't have their "A-Squad" working either, since this Friday also happens to be Good Friday, and thusly Easter weekend. While not a federal holiday, many outlets and states still view this weekend as an optional holiday that news can likely still be buried thanks to coming out on the last possible day before the "holiday" begins. So in this case at least, Thursday might as well be treated as a Friday for a news dump.
I got slapped with occam’s easter kipper seconds after I finished my paranoid overthought panic attack yesterday.

Beware the wrath.


@MicahGrimes Some of dozen-plus White House officials interviewed by Special Counsel Mueller concerned about the president's "wrath" if they are seen as a source of damaging info in Thursday's real of the report, according to multiple witnesses in the investigation.
The Wrath of Can’t.
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,907
This all feels like build up to a dud. They are feeding these stories knowing damn well Barr is holding shit back. They already know what’s coming. Building it up to crash it down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.