Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Republicans didn't have a problem with that when it came to Kenneth Starr. Why is it an issue now?

Can you spell H-I-P-P-O-C-R-A-Z-Y?

 

It is like you live in a parallel universe.

 

Yeah, Congress is leaky. I can't help that. That's not my object anyway. I just want a full process. You continue to want to imply I have some hidden motivation to score political hits, and I'm telling you that is not it. Unless Barr reads the entire report into testimony, his visit will not give a complete picture of the investigation. The whole country has been waiting for 2 years to see what this report would say, and now we'll have it.

I'll go F myself, that's fine. Because I know this issue will not go away. Even if Barr manages to stonewall this House, it will still be a national interest in the next House. And, if god forbid Trump loses in 2020, everything will be coming out under the next president. Sooner or later, the full scope will be known. I don't know why you want to throw in with those who want to stop citizens from learning the findings of their investigation into their civil servants, but it is at best just a delaying tactic. It'll all come out in the end.

 

Sure. Do you feel the same about all the members of Trump's cabinet that have lied to congress time and time again? Even though, Kavanaugh lied to congress, I don't think anyone would be well served by having him face justice, but if you disagree, I'm open to arguments.

 

Republicans are allowed to lie to Democrats, @cml750 @MojoMan both are ok with that. Their morality only applies to those they disagree with. For their side, they give a pass.

 

It would be a mistake to overlook the quantity of Counter-intelligence content that exists in the Mueller report. Here is the area whose confidentiality must be safeguarded, as the counter-intelligence continues and the value of the channels must be preserved. Having said that, it is crucial to have public testimony on all material from the SCO investigation that isn't CI sensitive, and they can take testimony on that material into closed session.

 

In fairness, I think there was a bipartisan change to the process because of the Starr disaster that was meant to deter such wholesale, salacious publication (referring to the Starr report). Here, redact the the names or identifying characteristics of the presumed innocent, take out truly classified stuff from the public version, and let as much as possible out.

If that doesn't happen, there will always be a taint and a large percentage of the population will lose (more) faith in the system. If you do, some folks with different opinions are going to read it the way they want to read it anyways, good or bad (or both), or dismiss it.

Far healthier to let it out.

 

Curious, if at least the main focus of the investigation was focused on "collusion" (since no such crime is in the books, substitute "criminal conspiracy"), curious how redacting the names/identifying characteristics of other people would work since its those relationships and the activities involved that would be the basis "collusion"? In other words... if trump junior, kushner, and three russian spies met to discuss hacking DNC emails, and you redact their names, what would you still have to report? Especially since the closeness of their relationship to the presidency is critical information.

And removing "truly classified" stuff? What is "truly classified" versus simply classified? I mean, I understand the importance of not divulging the names of agents, their locations, and maybe even the exact details of how the information was ascertained (eg. wire taps), but the discussions or other info pertinent to the investigation would seem safe to share. Again, the case involves interactions between US. citizens and later government officials with a foreign government(s), so there is obviously going to be sensitive information. But if you redact all the information about interactions between trump's people and russia, again, what else would be communicated in and about the investigation?

Lastly... there should be no restriction of info provided to congress.

 

Which is a good reason to not release to the public, but not so much to Congress. Hopefully, we've elected smart enough Congressman that they won't compromise our efforts there. But even if it's too sensitive to give to 500+ officials, you could redact for counter-intelligence for Congress generally and supply an unredacted version to the appropriate committees that deal particularly in that area.

Thinking back to @MojoMan's objection, I think it can also be conceded that the supporting evidence can wait. Get the full report, see if there is anything Congress wants to pursue. If there is, get the evidence from the DOJ; if there isn't anything to be done, you can let the evidence alone until it eventually is made public by the regular process.

My guiding tenet here, though, is that Congress should be given everything they need to consider the issue and there are no concerns about due process, ongoing investigations, national security, or anything else that can't be overcome with a careful process. Congress is one of the three coequal branches of the leadership of our country, and they have an oversight obligation on the other two. You can't ask them to lead and to oversee, but oh no you can't have this information and that information. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

Barr is testifying before Congress today.

It is reported that Barr stated that he has no plans to give Congress an unredacted report.

 

So... Mueller did not review barr's "summary" letter...

 

... and, barr didn't approach Mueller to help write his summary...

 

full as in "fully redacted"?

 

Unless I mis-heard, Barr said he would be in a position to release the report within a week, which is not the same thing as a promise to release it.

 

And the reason why...

 

... but who's counting?