Posted on 05/07/2019 10:44:54 AM PDT by Red Badger
The Justice Department released a second copy of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Monday evening, following a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by BuzzFeed and the Electronic Privacy and Information Center.
The lightly-redacted version of Mueller's report appears to be identical to the 448-page document that was released in April, except it sheds more light on the redactions by explaining why the blacked-out information is exempted from release under FOIA.
Democrats in Congress are threatening to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for declining to provide them with an unredacted version of the report, and this successful move by BuzzFeed and EPIC may make it easier for their battle for the full report to move forward in federal court.
Along with the report itself, the Justice Department included a letter from senior counsel Vanessa Brinkman addressed to BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold, who had filed a FOIA request for the report back on March 21, 2019. Brinkman said the Office of Information Policy had processed the Mueller report under FOIA and had made it available on the Justice Department website. Brinkman also said she had “determined that the Report is appropriate for release with excisions” and listed the different reasons for redactions, including exemptions related to: protecting sources and methods, safeguarding law enforcement techniques, shielding ongoing law enforcement proceedings, keeping grand jury testimony confidential, ensuring deliberative process privilege, avoiding invasions of privacy, and ensuring a fair trial.
One example of how the latest version of Mueller's report adds a bit more clarity to the redaction process can be seen by comparing the short overview section on “Russian Hacking Operations” early in the document. In the originally released version, a few lines in the WikiLeaks section are said to be redacted due to “Harm to Ongoing Matter.” But in the version released Monday, DOJ explains those sentences are blacked out due to exemptions “(b)(6), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(B), (b)(7)(C)”, which are related to improper disclosures of information, interference with enforcement proceedings, deprivation of the right to fair trial, and invasion of privacy respectively.
Leopold tweeted earlier in the day: “We intend to challenge all of the redactions.”
Mueller wrapped up the Russia investigation in March and the DOJ released a redacted version of his report in mid-April. The report showed Mueller's team did not find sufficient evidence showing criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin during the 2016 election. Mueller did not, however, clear Trump of obstruction of justice. Barr says he determined there is insufficient evidence to prove an obstruction crime, but Democrats argue Mueller's report, which outlines 10 instances of possible obstruction, leaves it up to Congress to investigate and decide.
Just days before Mueller's report was released the first time, the judge in the FOIA case appeared to be sympathetic to the arguments being made by BuzzFeed, leveling critiques at what he seemed to see as the secrecy being practiced by the Justice Department. ”Obviously there is a real concern about whether there will be transparency … I hope that the government will be as transparent as it can be," said Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Taking aim at Barr directly, Walton said, “The Attorney General has created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned about whether there will be full transparency.” The release of the redacted report is just the beginning of this litigation, and the case will likely continue moving forward in federal court shortly.
The same night the Justice Department released this second version of the Mueller report, the Justice Department was also engaged in a high-profile back-and-forth with the Democrat-run House Judiciary Committee over the department's refusal to turn over an unredacted version of the report.
Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., released a statement late Monday evening saying, “I am pleased that the Department of Justice has agreed to meet with my staff tomorrow — and not Wednesday afternoon, as originally proposed by DOJ.”
“It remains vital that the Committee obtain access to the full, unredacted report and the underlying materials,” Nadler said. “At the moment, our plans to consider holding Attorney General Barr accountable for his failure to comply with our subpoena still stand.”
Earlier in the day, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said, “The Department remains willing to accommodate Congress’s legitimate needs, but must do so consistent with the law.”
HOW DO YOU “OBSTRUCT’ AND INVESTIGATION INTO NOTHING.
There was NO CRIME, hence nothing you could obstruct the investigation of.
They won’t read this one either. Remember, these are the same people who didn’t bother to read the ACA - but voted on it, anyway...’to see what was in it...’
The report was written under false pretense, specifically the original FISA warrants and the underlying rationale for the investigation which turn out to be political fiction concocted by the Clinton campaign in collusion with the Obama DoJ and Intelligence agencies.
When do the arrests begin for that? And why should a report written under those circumstances have any credibility as a document for the Congress?
They cannot read this one, they want the one with pictures.
Release it in crayon for Nadler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.