Never trumpers and libs obviously didn’t get any ammo or this thread would be 500 posts by now. Something tells me it didn’t go the way they expected.
I don’t see Trump supporters in here either. Nothing worth repeating?
Why did a democratic congress pass a law preventing them from doing so?
How is that individual mandate going?
Post mueller report means “after mueller report”. Not “about mueller report”.
Some grand jury testimony is protected and it would be illegal to release it. The law would have to be changed.
When was that law passed?? I’ve heard that is was passed in 1999. If so, Democrats didn’t control Congress back then.
They didn’t.
No law was passed in 1999.
A law expired in 1999.
Of course the White House reviewed it. Barr has stated publicly that it is his intention to support Donald Trump’s agenda.
1 Like
I probably got it wrong. Rush was saying on his program today that after the Ken Star investigation of Clinton, with all the lurid sexual stuff about Clinton being released in the report that the dems passed a law going forward to limit all future investigation releases. Havent done the research to see if it was true or not but that is what he put forward today at about 1230pm. Again I may have misunderstood him. Perhaps some of the avid listeners of Rush on this forum could expound on what he said. As for me, Rush is like Judge Judy. I can take them both for between 5 and 10 minutes. After that the station has to get changed.
Is it his intention to violate the law? Does he have a record of corruption? Then we’re cool. Right?
Quote Limbaugh at your own risk.
1 Like
Have you even read Rule 6(e)(3)(D). I don’t believe it is authorizing any such release. It is very specific.
I don’t believe I mentioned your name. The conspiracy theory involved is the belief that redactions are being planned for some nefarious purposes when actually, in a report like this, they are to be fully expected.
1 Like
I have read it. Here it is for others to read as well. And I believe this does authorize the AG fully here. Barr seemed to believe so as well, according to his testimony today. He is just opting not to use this rule for reasons.
(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C.
§401a3003), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official’s duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.
It was a reply to me so the intent seemed to imply the accusation was directed to me. If you say not, then I believe you.
Or Barr could simply petition a judge to allow release of grand jury information, subject to necessary redaction of ongoing investigation information. You know, like previous special prosecutors have done. Why hasn’t he?
He flat out refused to answer the question on whether trump and his lawyers saw the full report.
I would take that as a “yes” myself.
Those working at the highest level in the Trump administration…do they think they will rise above the corruption brings to the table?..be able to avoid it?..or are just blinded by the prospect of power and glory?
I dunno, is demanding certain redactions that are in reality just blatantly partisan omissions that should be included breaking the law?
Oh, that’s a tough one. I wouldn’t wxpect a quick answer from that quarter.
1 Like
