Judge demands unredacted Mueller report, questioning Barr's 'credibility'

[TomFitz]

I read the WAPO version of this story this morning ... you know where they were coming from.
It is a bit curious why Judge Reggie Walton would suggest that AG Barr's summary of the Mueller [Weissman] Report's findings was misleading so he's requesting to see the unredacted Report.
The summary certainly did reflect what was in the published redacted Report, and the Judge had access to that.
So how could he suggest the summary was misleading if he didn't see the unredacted version?

Only a Trumpster would ask that question!

Barr’s intent was to mislead, and to create the false impression that the Mueller Report didn’t reveal anything, which is about as far from the truth as you can get without outright lying.

Of course, that wasn’t really good enough for the Clown Prince, who bellowed that he had been “Exhonorated”, anyway (as did much of his right wing talk radio fan base).

The intent in both parsing the report in the most favorable light possible, and then sitting on it for weeks, while the public generally settled on Barr’s misleading claims as fact.

So, when the hearings started, and the facts got discussed in public, the public was watching, but not too closely.

Few people actually read the report, which is astounding reading, especially since it is all documented, attested to, and unchallenged as far as factual content.

I have a paper copy. You can simply drop it on the coffee table and let it fall open to just about any random page, and you will be astounded at the catalog of brinksmanship, amateurishness. Stupidly and flagrant disregard for the law catalogued therein.

 

[GDViking]

Because MUELLER said this in his indictment. That was the entire prosecution-- Stone was asked by the Trump campaign to reach out to Wikileaks to find out if they had anything more (and he lied about it during the investigation).
Why would Stone need to reach out to Wikileaks (and in fact he had no contact with Wikileaks; that's where Credico came in) if he had contacts with Russia?

Regarding Steele-- why believe his largely anonymous 2nd, 3rd and (as per the Horowiz) 4th hand Russian sources? Seriously.
Steele has called his stuff "gossip."
And at a time when we know Russia was trying to screw with the election?

Stone lied about everything...

Steele is not going to give up sources it took him decades to cultivate, and risk their lives.

So far everything that has been able to be verified has been, not one thing has been disproven, so obviously his sources were credible.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective - Lawfare

 

[GDViking]

They are not even close.
Trump will not be charged with anything.

Wrong , that is why in the Mueller deposition he specifically stated trump could be prosecuted after leaving office, and was asked charge by charge if they rose to the level of obstruction, on all ten counts there was no question.

Trump is not exonerated!!!

 

[Athanasius68]

Stone lied about everything...

Steele is not going to give up sources it took him decades to cultivate, and risk their lives.

So far everything that has been able to be verified has been, not one thing has been disproven, so obviously his sources were credible.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective - Lawfare

Well, Mueller indicted him for how he indicted him.
Would still need to explain why Stone went to Credico instead of Russia if Stone already had the contacts.
Or why Trump went to Stone if they already were conspiring with Russia,

The dossier has been refuted-- ie the Horowiz report.

 

[Athanasius68]

Wrong , that is why in the Mueller deposition he specifically stated trump could be prosecuted after leaving office, and was asked charge by charge if they rose to the level of obstruction, on all ten counts there was no question.

Trump is not exonerated!!!

And to keep it specifically on topic, Barr also said Mueller said Trump was not exonerated.

As before, pretty thin gruel to suspect lack of candor.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Only a Trumpster would ask that question!

Barr’s intent was to mislead, and to create the false impression that the Mueller Report didn’t reveal anything, which is about as far from the truth as you can get without outright lying.

Of course, that wasn’t really good enough for the Clown Prince, who bellowed that he had been “Exhonorated”, anyway (as did much of his right wing talk radio fan base).

The intent in both parsing the report in the most favorable light possible, and then sitting on it for weeks, while the public generally settled on Barr’s misleading claims as fact.

So, when the hearings started, and the facts got discussed in public, the public was watching, but not too closely.

Few people actually read the report, which is astounding reading, especially since it is all documented, attested to, and unchallenged as far as factual content.

I have a paper copy. You can simply drop it on the coffee table and let it fall open to just about any random page, and you will be astounded at the catalog of brinksmanship, amateurishness. Stupidly and flagrant disregard for the law catalogued therein.

Yep. Barr lied and lied under oath. The man is Dominionist filth.

How Barr’s Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report’s Findings - The New York Times

 

[bubbabgone]

Only a Trumpster would ask that question!

Barr’s intent was to mislead, and to create the false impression that the Mueller Report didn’t reveal anything, which is about as far from the truth as you can get without outright lying.

Of course, that wasn’t really good enough for the Clown Prince, who bellowed that he had been “Exhonorated”, anyway (as did much of his right wing talk radio fan base).

The intent in both parsing the report in the most favorable light possible, and then sitting on it for weeks, while the public generally settled on Barr’s misleading claims as fact.

So, when the hearings started, and the facts got discussed in public, the public was watching, but not too closely.

Few people actually read the report, which is astounding reading, especially since it is all documented, attested to, and unchallenged as far as factual content.

I have a paper copy. You can simply drop it on the coffee table and let it fall open to just about any random page, and you will be astounded at the catalog of brinksmanship, amateurishness. Stupidly and flagrant disregard for the law catalogued therein.

We're talking about Barr's summary of the Report and the Weissmann Report.
Nothing else.
What I read in Barr's summary did not contradict what the the Weissmann Report said.
Tell me what Barr said that was not correct.

 

[American]

According to the NYT only about 8% of the redactions were considered classified....but the rest of it isn't.



See Which Sections of the Mueller Report Were Redacted - The New York Times

Redactions aren't limited to classification only.

 

[American]

Judge demands unredacted Mueller report, questioning Barr'''s '''credibility'''


A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Department of Justice to hand over to him a copy of the unredacted Mueller report and accused Attorney General William Barr of misrepresenting its findings in the days before it was submitted to Congress last year.




Russia, Russia, Russia......

Ahhh, the next hoax! :lol:

 

[j brown's body]

Ahhh, the next hoax! :lol:

How weird it must be to live in a world of hoaxes and conspiracies. The perils of (or is it the comfort of?) of being what Eric Hoffer referred to as a True Believer.

 

[SCrider]

How weird it must be to live in a world of hoaxes and conspiracies. The perils of (or is it the comfort of?) of being what Eric Hoffer referred to as a True Believer.

I think they must find it comforting to be able to live in a reality that is not based on facts.but what they want to believe.

 

[ludin]

As a matter of law, as a federal judge he is not required to have one - but he probably does have one given that he was until recently the presiding judge of the FISA court.

That was then this is now.
once he left the FISA court that is all that matters.
Federal judges do not have classified clearance unless someone can point me to something that says otherwise.

nor do they have the ability to declassify it.

 

[ludin]

As usual, your barracks lawyer education fails you... Here is an example of a federal judge going so far as releasing formerly classified information...

Judge issues rare order to disclose classifed document - POLITICO

Right because it was a trade deal. there is little in the trade deal that would impact national security.

This is not the same. this is grand jury information which has been redacted because well that is the law.
as a judge he knows that he does not have the authority to view or release that grand jury information.

nor does he have the power to declassify it.

 

[ludin]

Judges don't need classification authority to review classified information...

wrong he need the correct security clearance just like anyone else.
barr offered the intelligence members on the house that they could come over and view
the entire report.

they refused to do so.

 

[BlueTex]

wrong he need the correct security clearance just like anyone else.
barr offered the intelligence members on the house that they could come over and view
the entire report.

they refused to do so.

Article III judges do not need a security clearance...

 

[bomberfox]

No, they are not the authority. The US Constitution is the authority and the three branches of government are equal. The courts have no legal authority to make any such demands.

The courts have every authority to make such demands. The constitution gave the courts such authority.

 

[Moot]

Redactions aren't limited to classification only.

I never said they were.

 

[j brown's body]

We're talking about Barr's summary of the Report and the Weissmann Report.
Nothing else.
What I read in Barr's summary did not contradict what the the Weissmann Report said.
Tell me what Barr said that was not correct.

The author of the report criticized Barr for his summary of it.

 

[BlueTex]

That was then this is now.
once he left the FISA court that is all that matters.
Federal judges do not have classified clearance unless someone can point me to something that says otherwise.

nor do they have the ability to declassify it.

Pointing to something that says otherwise...

[USC02] 18 USC App 9: Security procedures

4. Personnel Security-Court Personnel. No person appointed by the court or designated for service therein will be given access to any classified information in the custody of the court, unless such person has received the appropriate security clearance and unless access to such information is necessary for the performance of an official function. A security clearance for justices and other Article III judges is not required.

Feel free to say, "I was wrong."

 

[bomberfox]

So when a court rules that the executive branch is breaking a law, it's merely a suggestion that the executive branch stops it because they can't demand they stop it?

Seriously, how far down the rabbit hole are you guys willing to go? I can't believe you are arguing such nonsense with a serious face. I've never seen a group of people so invested in making sure that facts stay secret and that information is evil. The republican party has turned into big brother.

Im not surprised anymore. Tweedy cultists are predictable.

 

[j brown's body]

I have never in my life seen a judge accuse the Attornet General of lying. This is a very serious situation and suggests that our federal criminal justice system is being torn apart.

 

[Taylor]

That was then this is now.
once he left the FISA court that is all that matters.
Federal judges do not have classified clearance unless someone can point me to something that says otherwise.

nor do they have the ability to declassify it.

Though the law specifically states that a judge (or jury) need not have a clearance to view classified information pertaining to a case, many do have clearances and they make an effort to match cases that involve classified information with judges that have clearances.

A security clearance for justices and judges is not required, but such clearance shall be provided upon the request of any judicial officer who desires to be cleared.

United States Code: Title 18a,9. Security procedures | LII / Legal Information Institute

The requirement of security clearances does not extend to the judge or to the defendant (who would likely be ineligible, anyway).

2054. Synopsis Of Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) | JM | Department of Justice

 

[upsideguy]

Yeah, a judge doesn't have that authority. :lamo

Actually he does. He is presiding over an active FOIA case. He is sitting in judgement of a particular matter that compels him to see the report.

I have never in my life seen a judge accuse the Attornet General of lying. This is a very serious situation and suggests that our federal criminal justice system is being torn apart.

America is being torn apart.... and our unpatriotic Trumpty Dummies are either too ignorant to see it, or simply don't care much for American democracy.

 

[The AntiDonald]

What business is it of his? Does he have a case before him in which the report is relevant? What's the basis of his need to know?

I think the American people have the right to know that the AG is basically a liar. He is a very conservative judge. He smells some sh** coming from Barr and needs to know if the redaction's are to protect Trump or just classified for good reason. It is not Barr's job to protect Trump. He is the peoples lawyer. Trump has his own lawyers.

It's obvious why all the conservatives are attempting to protect Barr. The problem is, most people knew he was lying when he did it. I wish you all luck while the firestorm rains down on the most corrupt president yet. He has polluted everyone that went to work for him.

 

[The AntiDonald]

[USC02] 18 USC App 9: Security procedures

4. Personnel Security-Court Personnel. No person appointed by the court or designated for service therein will be given access to any classified information in the custody of the court, unless such person has received the appropriate security clearance and unless access to such information is necessary for the performance of an official function. A security clearance for justices and other Article III judges is not required.

Anything more?

These people are just dense.