Posted on 05/27/2019 2:35:19 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(CNN)Sought-after parts of the Mueller investigation may be made public this week, thanks to a federal judge who's taken an unusual approach in former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn's case.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court in DC set a Friday deadline for the Justice Department to make public unredacted portions of the Mueller report that pertain to Flynn, plus transcripts of Flynn's calls with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and of a voicemail during which someone connected to Trump referenced Flynn's cooperation. Taken together, the judge's orders look like a shortcut to transparency in a moment of executive branch stonewalling.
Each of the documents, once made public, could bring revelations about Mueller's work. The transcripts alone could answer lingering questions about what exactly Flynn said to the Russians that caused so much concern among US intelligence and how a message that factored into the obstruction of justice probe into President Donald Trump played out.
So far, the Justice Department hasn't pushed back on the judge's demands. But it could before the May 31 deadline.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The article itself has some leftist wishful thinking.
Don’t see why the DOJ would care.
Yeah, because operatives and tactics information is okay to release in open court. Everyone knows that... /s
These Rat Babies really DO exist under the illusion that the extra sentence or two they haven’t been allowed to read in the Mueller report is the “smoking gun” that, for absolute sure, is going to drive their worst nightmare out of office.
They seem utterly oblivious that, even if they succeed, that Hillary Clinton will NOT become President - which what I’d bet a lot of them imagine would happen.
How’s that supposed to happen since he hasn’t even been sentenced yet?
I'm confused. How does one make "public" portions that are UNREDACTED? Wouldn't such portions already be available to the public?
What’s the motivation? Hopefully the judge is looking to toss the charges and reverse the plea.
This is what you get when you hire 22 year old sex-studies graduates to write the news.
But probably isn't.
Good catch! The headline says ‘redacted’ but the article says ‘unredacted.’
Rendering the whole thing another completely useless CNN dog dropping.
And they know exactly how many characters are in the redacted text they can't see.
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.