Preparing for the Mueller report

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
75,407
65,849
So. Md.
#11
I don't have a problem with a redacted summary for public consumption. What I have a problem with is the Congress is being given the same thing. There are members of Congress who are qualified and entitled to see the original, unredacted report.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,543
6,421
#12
An unrelated point on my usual journalistic integrity concern.

Why aren't these legal restrictions regular parts of the news coverage responding to the public's desire to see the whole report?

Is "yeah Baby, we want to see it too and the polls are on our side" an appropriate news response to the public's desire?

We ARE propaganda nation. Laws don't matter. The rights of Jews don't matter. Only the strength of the propaganda matters.

Students of history should recognize the problem.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,543
6,421
#13
I don't have a problem with a redacted summary for public consumption. What I have a problem with is the Congress is being given the same thing. There are members of Congress who are qualified and entitled to see the original, unredacted report.
Not according to the law quoted in the Cornell link.
 
Likes: John T Ford
Apr 2010
20,051
23,275
Oregon
#14
You seem to be confusing opinions with lies. None of the things you listed were lies.

Implying Barr has briefed the WH on the report.
Barr briefed the WH on his letter before release. He refused to answer the question if Trump has seen the report when testifying before congress

Since you do not know that Barr did not brief Trump, this is not a lie.

Implying Barr wants to hide/cover up something.
In my opinion, all evidence points to Barr trying to bury the report.

Another not lie

Implying all Barr has to do is ask and GJ testimony would be released.
Literally that’s all he has to do. In the past, judges have allowed the release of grand jury material when in the public interest. See the Starr report.

A request from Barr would at the very least get the legal ball rolling.


Again, not a lie

The inability to acknowledge Meuller and his team are working with Barr to release the report with the appropriate redactions.

The overall tone of your post.
Lol, who told you that, Barr?

It’s not a lie to to exclude information you personally think is relevant.

This is like the fake news trope. Just because you don’t like what someone is saying doesn’t mean it’s a lie or the story is fake.
 
Apr 2010
20,051
23,275
Oregon
#15
An unrelated point on my usual journalistic integrity concern.

Why aren't these legal restrictions regular parts of the news coverage responding to the public's desire to see the whole report?

Is "yeah Baby, we want to see it too and the polls are on our side" an appropriate news response to the public's desire?

We ARE propaganda nation. Laws don't matter. The rights of Jews don't matter. Only the strength of the propaganda matters.

Students of history should recognize the problem.
Have you not been watching the news? They have analyzed and reanalyzed what can and can’t be released as part of the report.

And then they have analyzed it another 300,009 times sinces we have been waiting weeks to see anything
 
Jan 2015
48,468
13,872
Great State of Texas
#16
Not according to the law quoted in the Cornell link.
The Democrats passed that law back in the 90's to prevent all the details of Bill Clinton's sexual endeavors from being released to the public with the Starr Report.

Now that Law comes back to bite them with the release of the Mueller Report.

It's like the Biden Rule all over again.
 
Likes: spyydrr

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,543
6,421
#17
Have you not been watching the news? They have analyzed and reanalyzed what can and can’t be released as part of the report.

And then they have analyzed it another 300,009 times sinces we have been waiting weeks to see anything
And it obviously did not sink in, since you and most everyone else here on your side of the argument claims that Congress has the right to see the underacted report.

Which they do not.

This is why I go back to NPR all the time. They lean hard left on all their culture and opinion stuff, but when the public needs the truth of a hard news story, they do it right.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,543
6,421
#18
I don't have a problem with a redacted summary for public consumption. What I have a problem with is the Congress is being given the same thing. There are members of Congress who are qualified and entitled to see the original, unredacted report.
So what you are saying is that someone can be a member of congress and can will only use grand jury testimony "to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law" ? Wasn't that Mueller's job?
 
Likes: pragmatic
Apr 2010
20,051
23,275
Oregon
#19
And it obviously did not sink in, since you and most everyone else here on your side of the argument claims that Congress has the right to see the underacted report.

Which they do not.

This is why I go back to NPR all the time. They lean hard left on all their culture and opinion stuff, but when the public needs the truth of a hard news story, they do it right.
If the shoe was in the other foot, in no universe would you be saying that the report should not be given to congress. And you know it.

You post NPR because you think it makes you sound like an objective intellectual, but in reality, you are more extreme than most. You have consistently said that the FBI are the real problem. They never should have dreamed of investigating a campaign that they warned may be infiltrated by the Russians, but the campaign kept meeting with Russians to get dirt anyway. You think the media should have outright lied and made up alternative scenarios where the reason that Trump Jr. said “I love it” to Russian dirt on HRC and agreed to meet a Russian government attorney had something to do with Trump Sr. having business interests in Russia that he lied and insisted didn’t exist. Now you are advocating for the burial of the Mueller report. Posting NPR pieces won’t make you less of a pro Trump extremist.
 
Apr 2010
20,051
23,275
Oregon
#20
So what you are saying is that someone can be a member of congress and can will only use grand jury testimony "to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law" ? Wasn't that Mueller's job?
Congress has been given grand jury testimony in the past. There is no reason this should be an exception. This is of the utmost public and historic interest.

Barr should make a request of the judge and get the legal ball rolling. He would certainly do that if he actually was interested in transparency and not a blatant stooge
 

Similar Discussions