It's called case law, moron.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why not release the report?
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
It's called case law, moron.
Cite the law that says he has to release it and when he has to release it.
No, you made the claim first that there was a law in place.
I asked you to cite that law.
The best you could do is cite a court case, but that case was narrowly defined to the subject of the case, not to all SC reports.
You're a fraud.
I see right through this act.
No it hasn't.
Now you're lying...
So just so you know, lying to me like this has opened the door for me to attack you personally.
I just copied the post, lying troll.
Barr will release it, some of it, or none of it
when and IF he sees fit.
Because he's covering it up, obviously.
Full disclosure seems to be a threat to Barr. Gee, I wonder why.
No, you made the claim first that there was a law in place.
I asked you to cite that law.
The best you could do is cite a court case, but that case was narrowly defined to the subject of the case, not to all SC reports.
You're a fraud.
I see right through this act.
I did, liar.
I note you have no law for your claim. Troll.
It does seem Unethical for Mueller to have failed to reach a conclusion on whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice. He could have gone deeper if he had probable cause from his 2 year investigation. Just a terrible way to word it in the summary.
We have no reason to believe Barr is accurately quoting Mueller unless we see the report for ourselves.
I'm not trusting the guy who helped Bush the Elder cover up Iran/Contra.
By not releasing the report and demanding everyone accommodate his slapdash summary.
Don't you want to see the full report for yourself?
Why are you content to just accept what Barr said and move on?
Who says he is not releasing it? He has already said he would, and do so according to applicable law. You're a lying troll.
“Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681.
That is not a law.
That is a court case.
A court case narrowly defined to the subject of that specific case, not applicable to Special Counsel reports.
Also, Barr said the whole thing exonerated Trump...so whose rights would be violated by full disclosure and how would those rights be violated?
The people mentioned in the Mueller Report must be protected.
Like who?
Quit being a dishonest moron, if that is even possible.
Status of the Department's Review
"The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a "confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6( e ), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter[ s] occurring before [a] grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6( e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6( e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of' notifications to your respective Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
Sincerely,
William P. Barr Attorney General"
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/de...Committees.pdf
Bump again for the lying troll....
It's called case law, moron.
Stretching the definition of "law" there.
That case's judgment was narrowly defined along the parameters of that specific case; it's not applicable to Special Counsel investigations.
Release the report.
That is not a law.
That is a court case.
A court case narrowly defined to the subject of that specific case, not applicable to Special Counsel reports.
Also, Barr said the whole thing exonerated Trump...so whose rights would be violated by full disclosure and how would those rights be violated?
Like who?
Liar, he did not say the whole thing exonerated Trump. You're worse than evince when it comes to lying.
I just copied the post, lying troll.
So you're just a mindless troll.
OK. Got it.
“Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681.
In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingement's of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments."
The names of innicent people in Mueller's report must be protected.
Shove that up your culo and smoke it.
In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingement's of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments."
The names of innicent people in Mueller's report must be protected.
Shove that up your culo and smoke it.
Getin the ring
Verified User
once again,
you will see what, if anything, that Mr. Barr says you can see
NEXT
you will see what, if anything, that Mr. Barr says you can see
NEXT
I did, liar.
No you didn't.
Stretching the definition of "law" there.
That case's judgment was narrowly defined along the parameters of that specific case; it's not applicable to Special Counsel investigations.
Release the report.
It may be narrowly tailored, but it is still law, idiot. Google what case law is. Do you really think SCOTUS decisions are not law.... LMAO
So you're just a mindless troll.
OK. Got it.
Yes he is, the law and J/D rules have been posted on this and other threads. He is a colossal waste of time and a troll.
No you didn't.
Twice now, liar.
Who says he is not releasing it?
Mitch McConnell, for starters.
He has already said he would
I don't trust Barr and I'm not sure why you trust him either.
do so according to applicable law.
What law?
Liar, he did not say the whole thing exonerated Trump
Then release the report!
It's that simple.
You can't make a claim and expect people to accept it unless they can verify for themselves.
Barr has a long history of covering up bad Conservative shit.