I am not aware that Huber has provided a report thus far. If that is public knowledge and you have a link handy, please direct me that way. If a report had been delivered, it would most likely be in the hands of Rosenstein/Sessions. If a report had been delivered and sat on, it would be sat on by Rosenstein/Sessions. I'll rephrase.
Given that Sessions was recused, who do you think Huber would "appropriately" give those recommendations to?
But now both the democrats and the republicans are aware of the report being requested, and both teams think it damages the other side. They both know they were lied to when it was said no such request was made.
I'm not sure what was said under testimony, do you have a link. But all Democrats and Republicans were made aware of the Sessions/Boyd memos back in January of 2018, so there's nothing new in this letter.
The pressure to release it mounts. And there is a new sheriff in town, Barr, who might just be pleased to chime in. These are exciting times.
I'm certainly more optimistic with the new sheriff, Barr, than I was with the old sheriff. Hopefully Trump releases the docs soon and Barr does his job.
Naturally Huber reports to his boss, the acting attorney general. With Sessions recused, that
would have been Rosenstein. But, Huber was well-informed at the time about the nuance of investigating his boss. As you noted, we all were back in early 2018 :
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/can_huber_investigate_his_boss_rosenstein.html
Being an intelligent man, Huber would most likely
not deliver a report to his boss if the investigation showed his boss was dirty. Instead he would continue his investigation, dragging it out as needed, until the way was cleared or the responsibility was removed from him. With Barr now installed, the way is cleared. This was all-but-confirmed in the article posted :
Reached for comment, a DOJ spokesperson said Huber’s review is still underway.
Huber has not delivered a report as of yet because its creation is still underway. And your point that there is nothing new in the letter is valid. But
we on this forum are more tuned in that most folks. What has changed is that
they are now tuned in too. Both sides are now in the loop and have claws out. Also from the article :
And on Nov. 16, 2018, Senior Counsel in the Office of Information Policy Vanessa Brinkmann, who handles FOIA Requests, said a lawyer in Sessions’ office told her no such letter existed. That lawyer spoke with Huber and Whitaker, she said in a declaration filed in federal court, and then told her that “when the Attorney General directed Mr. Huber to evaluate these matters, no written guidance or directives were issued to Mr. Huber in connection with this directive, either by the Attorney General, or by other senior leadership office staff.”
This was Vanessa Brinkmann's statement in court. I do not recall the lawyer in Sessions' office being named publicly. Likely that information has not been released -- no merit in naming names at that time. But that might have to change now with this FOIA showing we've all been misled.