Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Orders DOJ To Turn Over Unredacted Mueller Report, Calls Into Question Barr’s ‘credibility’
saraacarter.com ^ | Mar 5, 2020 | Sara Carter

Posted on 03/05/2020 7:05:37 PM PST by upchuck

This story is developing The Department of Justice was ordered Thursday by Judge Reggie B. Walton to turn over a copy of the unredacted former Special Counsel Robert Mueller report. The judge accused Attorney General William Barr of misrepresenting the findings of the report before it was submitted last year to Congress.

Walton, a federal district court judge in Washington D.C. who was appointed by President George W. Bush, questioned Barr’s public comments and ‘credibility’ about the report before Mueller released his findings.

“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” said Walton in his decision.

Department of Justice officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

(Excerpt) Read more at saraacarter.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: again; barr; crockofpoo; deepstate; doj; injustice; judge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
More at the link.
1 posted on 03/05/2020 7:05:37 PM PST by upchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Rope. Lamp posts. It’s the only way this nonsense stops.


2 posted on 03/05/2020 7:08:20 PM PST by CatOwner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Why is this judge even weighing in? Sounds like he’s ad-libbing and sticking his nose in for no reason. Don’t see any lawsuit this is connected to


3 posted on 03/05/2020 7:09:37 PM PST by gogulls (frequent lurker since 2000 recount)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatOwner

Where is the guy with the “Not this shit again” graphic?


4 posted on 03/05/2020 7:09:41 PM PST by RainMan (rainman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Is there a case associated with the judge’s ruling, or is the judge just wishfully asking?


5 posted on 03/05/2020 7:11:15 PM PST by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
A judge is ordering the Justice Department? Isn’t this a little bass-ackwards? 🤔
6 posted on 03/05/2020 7:12:43 PM PST by DJ Frisat ( (optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogulls

never mind. Buzzfeed (surprise) sued to see the whole unredacted thing. This idiot judge is still freelancing with his questionable commentary


7 posted on 03/05/2020 7:14:15 PM PST by gogulls (frequent lurker since 2000 recount)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Again, more interference with the Executive Branch by an unelected pile of bureaucrats. It’s just amazing how little respect there is for our president. Howz’ ‘bout demanding Hillary to “turn over hidden email info” or perhaps “turn over ALL the Biden money laundering data from the Ukraine”?


8 posted on 03/05/2020 7:17:31 PM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
The Special Counsel regulations in the DOJ seem to be pretty clear on this (underlined items are mine, for emphasis) ...

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.

(c) Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

--------------

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

9 posted on 03/05/2020 7:27:32 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("Oh, but it's hard to live by the rules; I never could and still never do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ Frisat

“Hey, Boss...I’m ORDERING you to do this.”

Worked every time for me in my career.


10 posted on 03/05/2020 7:33:14 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Thanx for clarification AC


11 posted on 03/05/2020 7:39:09 PM PST by thinden (How many Barr haters across America are being paid by Soros to attack Barr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
This is a terrible article.

Judges don’t just issue rulings out of thin air. What was the court case that led to this decision? Who was the plaintiff? How did it end up in this dude’s courtroom in the first place?

12 posted on 03/05/2020 7:43:06 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("Oh, but it's hard to live by the rules; I never could and still never do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RainMan
Where is the guy with the “Not this shit again” graphic?
He killed himself a few years ago after the “not this shit again” graphic became, itself, a cause for people to post the “not this shit again” graphic.
13 posted on 03/05/2020 7:44:08 PM PST by JohnBrowdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

No law even mandates ANY special counsel report be given to Congress.
This is executive privilege. I think this court cannot compel the president to do this.


14 posted on 03/05/2020 7:50:51 PM PST by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogulls

The DOJ is legally not required to make any portion of a special councils report to anyone.
Tell the judge to F off


15 posted on 03/05/2020 7:52:53 PM PST by dirtymac (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.(DT4POTUS))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
DOJ needs to take a close up look into every case this judge presided over starting tomorrow.

Maybe his financials as well.

16 posted on 03/05/2020 7:56:37 PM PST by Newbomb Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

let the judge try to enforce it.


17 posted on 03/05/2020 7:58:19 PM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatOwner
Overgrown teen?

Or Granny Tranny in between?

18 posted on 03/05/2020 7:58:22 PM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Appointed by Bush. The gift that keeps giving.


19 posted on 03/05/2020 8:00:25 PM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The Hill article had the entire decision linked. I read it. This is a Freedom of Information lawsuit claiming they need to see the redacted portions of the Mueller report so they can tell if Barr was misleading the public when he summarized the report in a letter to Congress.

This is an old political issue and the judge’s opinion sounds like a complete liberal rehash of that dispute.

The judge thinks Barr’s summary was a lie, but then again we have almost the whole report, but the judge thinks the redacted portions will reveal if Barr was hiding something and should therefore be released to the public.

Seems rather ridiculous to me.


20 posted on 03/05/2020 8:06:41 PM PST by Williams (Stop Tolerating The Intolerant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson