Circling The Arguments (SCO thread v. 32)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cake4Breakfast said:
Let's see if he actually releases the "full report", or if he redacts a lot to protect the "personal privacy" and "reputational interests" (his words in his recent letter to congress) of Team Trump in what he releases. I would be pleasantly shocked if he actually comes through on transparency.

And we already know a lot of bad things when it comes to Trump, things that were bad enough that Trump tried to obscure and lie about when it comes to business and campaign interactions with the Russians, let alone on the obstruction front where his lawyers wouldn't dare let him be interviewed out of fear that he would perjure himself ("guess" as Dowd said publicly, Trump's "a fucking lawyer" as Dowd said privately) and where Trump was praising and encouraging Manafort and Stone to stay silent while not saying that he would rule out a pardon, and he pardoned Scooter Libby along the way to show that people who don't rat get pardons. If a Dem did 10% of that right wingers would be losing their minds.
Click to expand...
The public overwhelmingly wants the full report released.
 
bobgeese said:
I’m well aware thanks.

He’s likely removing anything that defames anyone not charged with a crime, as the law requires.
Click to expand...
The more he keeps secret, the longer this gets drawn out. It's only a matter time before committee Intel leaders see the entire thing...once they do it will leak. Better for Barr (Trump) to just get it out now...unless it's that bad they just have to fight it's release.

I'm stoked...
 
MikeMcMann said:
I think that when you knowing advertise for a job with the POTUS as Barr did and you plan to not recuse yourself despite what ethics office says and you know you plan to provide the coverage the POTUS desires, that is very corrupt. He did not go in to be an arbiter or neutral in the process. He went in with his mind went up to end it.

It would be different if he was in that position and acted on his beliefs but he wanted to gain power to subvert a process as if his (Barr's) view was unassailable and therefore deserved to be put in place to become arbiter.

So I don't give him a pass.
Click to expand...


I’m not giving him a pass, and I am not saying that the situation isn’t fucked up, but I think Barr is an ideologue and has always been operating based on his worldview of the power of the POTUS.


"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.” ― Nietzsche
 
andnowweknow said:
Not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

I know, I just like pointing that out...Overall I am just skeptical, given what Barr has laid out, that his DOJ will be transparent about this. The release of the report and the political fallout has always been what is at stake for Team Trump (the real legal jeopardy has always been in the SDNY), and I expect it is something that they would have discussed with Barr in their chalk talks about the special counsel to see how his worldview would influence this moment. I hope I am wrong but I don't think Barr really cares about what the public wants.
 
grizzard2bid said:
Who are you again?
It's called grand jury information. It's a protocol that people not charged with crimes are to be protected. It takes time to redact it. Settle in. Democrats were willing to give Mueller unlimited time to work on his investigation, so now they can give a few weeks to censor private information in this report.
Click to expand...

"It didn’t have to be this way. Barr could have written a letter containing lengthy quotations from the report itself. He could have reached out to congressional leaders, shown them as much of the report as possible now and negotiated a timetable for them to see the rest. That would have been consistent with the transparency Barr pledged during his confirmation process.

Instead, Barr has refused to commit to ever letting Congress see the full report. In the face of a request by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for the “full and complete Mueller report” by April 2, Barr appears committed to release only a redacted version to “the appropriate congressional committees,” including Nadler’s.

Barr’s position is indefensible. The Constitution gives the “the sole Power of Impeachment” to the House of Representatives, and the House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachments. The Mueller investigation was, among other things, an investigation into possible criminal conduct by the president of the United States. There is no legal principle, including the separation of powers, that would permit the executive branch to block the results of an investigation into crimes allegedly committed by the president from the House of Representatives. To do so would deny the House’s ability to carry out its constitutional power of impeachment."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/30/william-barr-mueller-report-226340
 
25 security clearance denials overruled. Lock them up!
 
vengeful said:
3 million people is insignificant?
Click to expand...

2% certainly isn't significant. Lol, and that's only 2% of the 50% who even bothered to vote.

You'd only cite absolute numbers if you were making a dishonest argument.
 
Is anyone arguing that they dont want the whole report to be released? I'd love it if they did but realize that redactions are necessary and will happen.
 
BarryDillon said:
Precedent is for all the materials to be given to Congress, so they can inform the people, and so they can conduct their constitutionally mandated duty as a check on the power of the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...
I don't think some redactions are out of order. It wouldn't be such a big deal if this President hadn't proven to be so deceptive. He can't be trusted so we may have to attempt a court order to release the information or at least bring Mueller in to corroborate that they aren't redacting information solely to protect Trump.
 
bobgeese said:
Ever heard of protecting sources and methods?

<WellThere>
Click to expand...

Now you want to protect sources and methods? When a “spy” had lunch conversations with members of the Trump campaign you were all for getting whatever records needed to figure out who and why.
 
The only thing Barr has to do to protect Trump members not indicted is to redact their name but leave their actions capable of review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,764
Messages
58,316,414
Members
175,999
Latest member
Rosabelot

Share this page

Back
Top