It sounds like they aren't. Their argument is that someone in congress may leak it.
Can't they at least give it to the Gang of Eight? Or, at least let them have access to the unredacted report?
It sounds like they aren't. Their argument is that someone in congress may leak it.
Can't they at least give it to the Gang of Eight? Or, at least let them have access to the unredacted report?
They can, yes. But do you really think Barr and Trump will allow that if they can help it?
Exactly. This all is just a political farce.The redactions are color coded based on type and individually justified. It'll be pretty obvious and anything that looks suspicious will drive subpoenas and other action by various committees. And even without that all they would have to do is get Mueller or someone else who worked on it in front of them and ask "is this redaction properly justified?"
@realDonaldTrump The Mueller Report, which was written by 18 Angry Democrats who also happen to be Trump Haters (and Clinton Supporters), should have focused on the people who SPIED on my 2016 Campaign, and others who fabricated the whole Russia Hoax. That is, never forget, the crime.....
@realDonaldTrump ....Since there was no Collusion, why was there an Investigation in the first place! Answer - Dirty Cops, Dems and Crooked Hillary!
Exactly, you cant have it both ways Mr President."This thing that totally exonnerates me was written by 18 Angry Democrats"
For the record, we've had multiple posters on this very forum suggest outright that the report would be leaked by members of Congress.No it's not. Clinton's report was sent to Congress unredacted. These people have security clearances legitimately unlike some in the White House. Also nobody in the report should be protected from 'anything that would "unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties." '
It's fucking bullshit and you know it.
Is "it is my belief that members of Congress, who have clearance to view the documents, may leak them" a legitimate reason under the governing regulations for denying access to members of Congress with appropriate clearance?For the record, we've had multiple posters on this very forum suggest outright that the report would be leaked by members of Congress.
I'm unsure of what the law says about a document such as this and the redactions within. I just know that, regardless of what Congress gets, we're very likely to see Mueller testify before Congress.Is "it is my belief that members of Congress, who have clearance to view the documents, may leak them" a legitimate reason under the governing regulations for denying access to members of Congress with appropriate clearance?
I haven't read them but...I sincerely doubt that's an exception listed in the law.
He does this all the time. Did it with the leaks that were totally illegal but also very fake.
That's probably because it shouldn't be redacted in the first place.For the record, we've had multiple posters on this very forum suggest outright that the report would be leaked by members of Congress.
No it's not. Clinton's report was sent to Congress unredacted.
That's highly debatable. Again, there's going to be sensitive information within about both ongoing investigations and also investigative methods that are probably best kept out of the public eye.That's probably because it shouldn't be redacted in the first place.
For the record, we've had multiple posters on this very forum suggest outright that the report would be leaked by members of Congress.
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?
As quoted from earlier. There's a reason Barr let the White house see the full report before anyone else. Don't play dumb.
It's relevant insofar as people's expectations, especially given what the members of Congress have stated on the subject.What record? How are the opinions of forum posters releant to what congress will or won't do?
They know enough to have a written rebuttal coming out at the same time.It's relevant insofar as people's expectations, especially given what the members of Congress have stated on the subject.
Did you actually watch that clip? He literally says the opposite.
They know enough to have a written rebuttal coming out at the same time.
We have no reason to trust Barr right now
No one knows except Barr who wouldn't answer the question if the White House was briefed or not earlier last week. Just from Trump's reaction the past couple of days it wasn't very flattering I imagine.Well, what does "briefed" mean? Technically the public's been "briefed" too. Did the WH get copies of the actual report in full?
I'm assuming that these redactions are not in good faith when the guy being investigated gets briefed first by the guy he placed in the AG position back in January instead of Congress.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".
My question to you, then, is this: Do you think Mueller is going to accept that and cover for Barr and Trump when subpoenaed?I'm assuming that these redactions are not in good faith when the guy being investigated gets briefed first by the guy he placed in the AG position back in January instead of Congress.
This is obviously going to clear the president given that it's dropping right before a holiday weekend while Congress is in recess. That doesn't seem like a news dump at all.
They know enough to have a written rebuttal coming out at the same time.
We have no reason to trust Barr right now
@realDonaldTrump The Mueller Report, which was written by 18 Angry Democrats who also happen to be Trump Haters (and Clinton Supporters), should have focused on the people who SPIED on my 2016 Campaign, and others who fabricated the whole Russia Hoax. That is, never forget, the crime.....
@realDonaldTrump ....Since there was no Collusion, why was there an Investigation in the first place! Answer - Dirty Cops, Dems and Crooked Hillary!
No.My question to you, then, is this: Do you think Mueller is going to accept that and cover for Barr and Trump when subpoenaed?
Poor party planners who make the mistake of asking everyone for their preference, instead of just ordering X plain, X pepperoni, X veggie pies.
Regardless of redactions, the House will still push for the report in its entirety.
Doesn't matter. It'll never get released as long as republicans have the senate.
Apparently, Mueller's team summarized each section of their report, which does *not* include any information that requires redaction. It's just a summary of their findings... If those are at all redacted or edited, then it's obvious that Barr went to great lengths to obfuscate the report.
Exactly. I really doubt it's going to be feasible for Barr to hide much of anything here, given the nature of the report.Considering Mueller supposedly included summaries to each section that shouldn't require redactions, it should be pretty obvious if what we see goes against what Mueller wanted the public to see.
It's mostly why people are so pissed off.
Mueller basically made the summaries for the explicit purpose of being released without compromising sources/interfering with any ongoing investigations. As far as I understand it, that's really the only reason it's even there.
I hope someone asks him how he feels about those summaries not being released in a more timely fashion.
For the record, we've had multiple posters on this very forum suggest outright that the report would be leaked by members of Congress.