The Mueller Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AG under Obama illegally runs guns to Mexican cartels that results in an American law enforcement agent being murdered with one of them, then lies about it to Congress. Republican-controlled Congress votes to hold him in contempt.

Democrats: Muh abusive contempt charges!

AG under Trump refuses to publicly release materials he doesn't have the legal authority to release publicly, while Democrats refuse repeated offers to read full unredacted materials in private.

Democrats: CONTEMPT! TRAITOR! IMPEACH! THROW HIM IN THE DUNGEON!

Good on Trump to exert executive privilege. This is a dog and pony show by the Democrats. They had a chance to read the unredacted report and chose to play circus games instead.

Instead of trying to look at it and move on, they act like a dumped girlfriend stalking her ex boyfriend. It's sad.

Omg! So true! That is exactly like what schiff and Nadler are like. Dumped crazy exes who can’t accept their new reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AG under Obama illegally runs guns to Mexican cartels that results in an American law enforcement agent being murdered with one of them, then lies about it to Congress. Republican-controlled Congress votes to hold him in contempt.

Democrats: Muh abusive contempt charges!

AG under Trump refuses to publicly release materials he doesn't have the legal authority to release publicly, while Democrats refuse repeated offers to read full unredacted materials in private.

Democrats: CONTEMPT! TRAITOR! IMPEACH! THROW HIM IN THE DUNGEON!

Good on Trump to exert executive privilege. This is a dog and pony show by the Democrats. They had a chance to read the unredacted report and chose to play circus games instead.

Instead of trying to look at it and move on, they act like a dumped girlfriend stalking her ex boyfriend. It's sad.

Omg! So true! That is exactly like what schiff and Nadler are like. Dumped crazy exes who can’t accept their new reality.

This is patently false. That is why they are going through legal hoops.

[Anonymous]

The judge in Roger Stone’s case has the entire unredacted Mueller report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AG under Obama illegally runs guns to Mexican cartels that results in an American law enforcement agent being murdered with one of them, then lies about it to Congress. Republican-controlled Congress votes to hold him in contempt.

Democrats: Muh abusive contempt charges!

AG under Trump refuses to publicly release materials he doesn't have the legal authority to release publicly, while Democrats refuse repeated offers to read full unredacted materials in private.

Democrats: CONTEMPT! TRAITOR! IMPEACH! THROW HIM IN THE DUNGEON!

Good on Trump to exert executive privilege. This is a dog and pony show by the Democrats. They had a chance to read the unredacted report and chose to play circus games instead.

Instead of trying to look at it and move on, they act like a dumped girlfriend stalking her ex boyfriend. It's sad.

Omg! So true! That is exactly like what schiff and Nadler are like. Dumped crazy exes who can’t accept their new reality.

This is patently false. That is why they are going through legal hoops.

Congressional leadership has had an opportunity for two weeks (or more?) now, to read a much less redacted report. The redactions that still exist are those required by law.
How many Democrats have taken the opportunity to read it? None.

This is a fruitless attempt by the Democrats to force Barr to give them something they are not entitled to.
The reality is.... there is nothing, in law, that required him to present ANY of the report to Congress. Yet, he provided them with over 98% of the report.
Let them take this to court. The Dems will lose. He is required to turn over nothing.

[Anonymous]

98.1% of the unredacted Volume I is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

99.5% of the unredacted Volume II is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

Why did only 2 take up the review so far?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:98.1% of the unredacted Volume I is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

99.5% of the unredacted Volume II is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

Why did only 2 take up the review so far?

I have read that 5 Republicans have read it, but no Democrats have.
Do you have other information?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics/democrats-republicans-mueller-report/index.html

[Anonymous]

Oh its going to court, and the Dems will win. No court is going to say that a Congressional subpoena is unenforceable when Congress is acting in its constitutional oversight role. Even if it gets to the SC, Roberts won't touch that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh its going to court, and the Dems will win. No court is going to say that a Congressional subpoena is unenforceable when Congress is acting in its constitutional oversight role. Even if it gets to the SC, Roberts won't touch that.

After waiting nearly two years, how much of the actual report, if any, will lawmakers and the public be allowed to see?

The answer is largely up to Attorney General William Barr, who, under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, has the final say on how to handle the report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election and potential ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign.

But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.

“Barr doesn’t have the power to say, ‘We’re turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else,’” said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:98.1% of the unredacted Volume I is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

99.5% of the unredacted Volume II is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

Why did only 2 take up the review so far?

I have read that 5 Republicans have read it, but no Democrats have.
Do you have other information?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics/democrats-republicans-mueller-report/index.html

Thought is was only 2, both Repubs - thanks for the update and we can both agree that NO Dems are going to read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh its going to court, and the Dems will win. No court is going to say that a Congressional subpoena is unenforceable when Congress is acting in its constitutional oversight role. Even if it gets to the SC, Roberts won't touch that.

After waiting nearly two years, how much of the actual report, if any, will lawmakers and the public be allowed to see?

The answer is largely up to Attorney General William Barr, who, under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, has the final say on how to handle the report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election and potential ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign.

But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.

“Barr doesn’t have the power to say, ‘We’re turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else,’” said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

Dems be impeaching Barr because he WON’T break the law. They aren’t used to that in Bernie land

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:98.1% of the unredacted Volume I is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

99.5% of the unredacted Volume II is available to the 12 in Congress authorized to review it.

Why did only 2 take up the review so far?

I have read that 5 Republicans have read it, but no Democrats have.
Do you have other information?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics/democrats-republicans-mueller-report/index.html

The republicans who read it include Barr, who has subpoened Junior.

That is telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh its going to court, and the Dems will win. No court is going to say that a Congressional subpoena is unenforceable when Congress is acting in its constitutional oversight role. Even if it gets to the SC, Roberts won't touch that.

After waiting nearly two years, how much of the actual report, if any, will lawmakers and the public be allowed to see?

The answer is largely up to Attorney General William Barr, who, under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, has the final say on how to handle the report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election and potential ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign.

But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.

“Barr doesn’t have the power to say, ‘We’re turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else,’” said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

Dems be impeaching Barr because he WON’T break the law. They aren’t used to that in Bernie land

That is also patently false. They left a disclaimer in there for Grand Jury materials. Why do you keep spreading lies? There are still elements which Barr has randomly redacted that are not grand jury materials that he refuses to disclose. Why? Why do you support that?

[Anonymous]

One of the biggest overlooked bombshells in the Mueller Report was Russia’s 2016 infiltration of a voting technology company.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/13/ron-wyden-florida-election-hacking-1427761

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh its going to court, and the Dems will win. No court is going to say that a Congressional subpoena is unenforceable when Congress is acting in its constitutional oversight role. Even if it gets to the SC, Roberts won't touch that.

After waiting nearly two years, how much of the actual report, if any, will lawmakers and the public be allowed to see?

The answer is largely up to Attorney General William Barr, who, under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, has the final say on how to handle the report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election and potential ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign.

But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.

“Barr doesn’t have the power to say, ‘We’re turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else,’” said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

Dems be impeaching Barr because he WON’T break the law. They aren’t used to that in Bernie land

That is also patently false. They left a disclaimer in there for Grand Jury materials. Why do you keep spreading lies? There are still elements which Barr has randomly redacted that are not grand jury materials that he refuses to disclose. Why? Why do you support that?

There was no "randomly" when it came to redactions. Barr outlined the 4 areas that encompassed the redactions that were made.
And, pp is correct. There are redactions that must remain because of the law.

[Anonymous]

Only the Grand Jury redactions are complying with law. The rest are subjective to Barr's whims. There is no reason for them in the public realm. None.