General Question

Yellowdog's avatar

If the unredacted Mueller report can be viewed by members of congress in some restricted-access room, and the fully released version has only minimal redactions, why is congress so vehemently demanding an unredacted distribution?

Asked by Yellowdog (7137points) 2 weeks ago

There is nothing in these redactions but the names of persons who cannot be revealed or published by law, or information pertaining to other ongoing cases, or that which would reveal secret or classified intel, methods, etc etc.

What do these Democrat members of the House think they could get out of an unredacted personal copy that isn’t in the one available to all? I’m personally concerned they would target persons revealed in the report.

And, why do they think its time for a fifth investigation into the same matter?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

elbanditoroso's avatar

Because from a constitutional point of view, the Executive branch cannot and should not control what the legislative branch does. We have three co-equal branches of government. Not a dictatorship.

janbb's avatar

The Mueller Report stated that it is Congress’s job to further investigate the question of obstruction of justice. It refrained from drawing conclusions, ceding that power to the legislative branch.

Jaxk's avatar

It’s all about the 2020 elections. Dems are desperate to find dirt to throw on Trump. Distract from the booming economy, Discredit the Barr summary, and stop the investigation into the roots of the collusion story. Their whole impeachment effort is falling apart and they are desperate for some other narrative to replace it.

mazingerz88's avatar

Anything to bring down trump. Other way around and deplorable Republicans would do the same if not worse. If Republicans want to win elections with terrible clowns like trump then stop complaining about playing the game that you started.

LostInParadise's avatar

Why was Barr a no-show at the House hearing?
Why did he lie about not knowing what Mueller thought of his summary?
Why won’t Trump release his tax returns?
Why does Trump oppose testimonies by Mueller and McGahn?
How can it be legal for the president of the U.S. to make big profits by renting property to foreign officials?
Isn’t it a bit odd that Trump is so chummy with Putin? How can Trump agree with Putin’s statement that he was unaware of any Russian interference with the U.S. election?

Yellowdog's avatar

Only members of congress are supposed to attend the house hearings, Having hired attorneys in their stead is unpresidented. The obvious intent is a ‘perjury trap’ where a skilled attorney finds a technical contradiction in someone’s testimony or statement—a real, imagined, or fabricated one. Sometimes they even have a false testimony which they hold as the standard of truth. Then they say the target “lied” or “committed perjury. And try to make a criminal indictment out of it.

Barr was / is under no obligation to share anything with anyone regarding the Mueller investigation, nor is he obligated to meet with, the, uh, “congress.”

Mueller did not give an opinion on Barr’s summary before he presented it Mueler had no problem with anything but the context, which was being taken out of context by the media.

Trump is under no obligation to release his tax returns to his foes. Congress is acting like the vicious enemies they are. If there was anything with his tax returns, the IRS would have found it.

Trump has no problem with Mueller testifying, but the executive branch is now protected by executive privilege. The Trump cabinet and officials of the executive branch have been completely transparent to this point, The investigation is OVER. Yes, over. The lies and felonious, possibly treasonous acts of its origins are beginning to be investigated. Deal with it.

An obstruction charge would first of all require a crime was committed, which it was not. Firing people to actually shut down an investigation, as in Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre, would be a crime of obstruction if it were to hide uncovering a crime. Destroying emails and hard drives when felonies have been committed and being investigated, as Hillary Clinton did, would be obstruction. But when no crime has been committed, and no evidence destroyed, there is no obstruction.

Whether or not Trump owns, builds, rents properties to anyone has nothing to do with his political office. The Clintons did exactly what you are alleging—expecting to be able to buy favors and establish connections for when she became president. Her business, on a private server, was under investigation and she actually destroyed the emails and equipment. Some of those emails were discovered on Anthony Weiner’s computer. Why are you not concerned about THIS?

Trump has no notable comradery with Putin, and has been harder on Russia than any president since Reagan. Trump is decimating Putin’s oil monopoly in Europe and usually works against Russia in places like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc etc.

Interference in our elections by Russia was first brought up by Devin Nunes—and Obama said the Republicans were still living in the paranoia of the cold war days.

Of course, at that time, Obama and Hillary and company were involved in Uranium One, the childish “Russian Reset”, etc etc. and didn’t want anyone interfering with their deals with Russia or raising any accusations. Obama and Hillary Clinton were ridiculing the idea right up to the day before the November 2016 election. The Russian interference happened under Obama’s watch. Not the Trump administration.

Obama was so flippant about the idea of Russian interference, he raised his finger on television and said “cut it out.”

The Steel Dosser is, of course, of Russian origin, and was used by the Clinton team to frame Donald Trump and sway an election. It failed, and will be investigated and hopefully those involved will be in prison in a year or so. But the Democrats are the only ones causing the civil unrest in the country for the past 2–½ years.

ragingloli's avatar

“An obstruction charge would first of all require a crime was committed, which it was not.”
That is nonsense, and any legal professional will tell you that.
Besides, the investigation already resulted in several indictments and convictions, so there WERE underlying crimes.

“Mueller knew that Barr would block an indictment of Trump because Barr has a personal view of obstruction at odds with the statute itself. Barr’s view requires that the obstructer has done his obstructing in order to impede the investigation or prosecution of a crime that the obstructer himself has committed. Thus, in this narrow view, because Trump did not commit the crime of conspiracy with the Russians, it was legally impossible for Trump to have obstructed the FBI investigation of that crime.

The nearly universal view of law enforcement, however, is that the obstruction statute prohibits all attempted self-serving interference with government investigations or proceedings. Thus, as Georgetown Professor Neal Katyal recently pointed out, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted of obstruction for interfering with an investigation of his extramarital affair, even though the affair was lawful.

Famously, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of an investigation into her alleged insider trading, even though the insider trading charges against her had been dismissed. And a federal appeals court recently upheld the obstruction conviction of a defendant who suborned perjury in order to impede the prosecution of the sister of a childhood friend.

On obstruction, Barr is wrong.”

- Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

stanleybmanly's avatar

Desperate to find dirt to throw on Trump? The man is barely visible through the shell of dirt defining his exterior. And between Trump and the House, it’s rather clear which of the 2 is desperate. It isn’t a matter of the Dems throwing dirt. The desperation is in preventing exposure of the true extent and depth of the visible filth we all can see. The layers of muck are going to sustain the Dems beyond 2020. There will be digging through the crap on Trump well beyond the fool’s death. There is absolutely no question that the Democratic crusade against Trump is politically motivated. But the thing which is ignored in all of this is that there has never been an individual in the history of this country more worthy of exposure. The staggering list of frauds and scams for which the fool has ALREADY been declared responsible amount to barely the tip of what is undoubtedly a colossal iceberg that the state of New York alone will be mining into the foreseeable future.

kritiper's avatar

Politicians, like journalists, aren’t the brightest bulbs in the light fixture. And stupid is as stupid does. What more can you expect??

flo's avatar

Is it what it’s about that Trump said he’ll go to the supreme court? He can’t really. Sorry it not about that, it’s about impeachment.

LostInParadise's avatar

Mueller’s letter to Barr about summary

Mueller to Barr about his summary:
This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations

Barr lied to Congress. That is an impeachable offense.

seawulf575's avatar

I imagine the Dems want the entire report released unredacted so they can use more of it to try creating Trump-crisis. If they can only look at it in private, they would be ethically and possibly criminally wrong to use any of that material publicly. The leaks from the Dems on any number of panels has been staggering. They know they cannot keep a secret. They want to try nit-picking language and create innuendo but feel they cannot do that with the redacted versions.
Mueller doesn’t really have a hard time with anything Barr has put out. He felt what Barr put out could have had extra wording to better alleviate misunderstanding. But he doesn’t say Barr’s summary was wrong.
Ironically, this verifies what I stated about the desire to nit-pick and create innuendo. Look what the Dems and the liberal media is doing with the Mueller letter to Barr. Trying to read into it. And many on these pages are eating it up. That is exactly what the Dems want.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Barr is Trump’s lap dog and is looking for table scraps. Mueller has stated Barr in not telling the truth.

They don’t have to “nit-pick” !

seawulf575's avatar

Isn’t it funny that the Senate voted to confirm Barr’s nomination, yet he is supposedly Trump’s “lap dog”? The Dems on the judiciary committee claimed they feared Barr would “weaponize” the DoJ, yet are in complete denial that weaponization already occurred under Obama. Project much?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Back to the topic ((DEFLECT AGAIN much @seawulf575)).

Mueller called out Barr as being untruthful about the report.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What’s funny is that you neglected to mention that it was the REPUBLICAN Senate which confirmed another unabashed inveterately cloning stooge of the fool. Contrary to the customary string of no talent clueless appointments burped up by Trump, this one knows his stuff. It is thus peculiar to witness a performance from a Trump sycophant running counter to the customary display of mindless ineptitude and total ignorance of the job to which they are appointed. Barr instead is forced to disgrace himself through feigning levels of blundering stupidity common to the rest of the herd. The plain truth is that it is impossible to give a truthful or honest answer in defense of ANY question concerning ethical speech or behavior from the fool. Tough break Barr! Another stellar career in the parade of wreckage trailing from Trump’s wide behind.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You better hope Trump is able to keep Mueller from appearing before the Congress which is fully prepared to pick the RIGHT nits that will set fire to the lard in Trump’s corpulent ass.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I think you need to read the letters from Mueller to Barr again. He doesn’t say Barr was being untruthful, though that is the narrative the Dems are hoping for. It’s certainly the one you have swallowed. He felt Barr just needed to go a little further in explaining to help avoid the silliness the Dems and the media are spewing now.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let’s allow Mueller (the Republican) to explain for himself.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther