Democrats in Congress do not want the full report in order to peruse it and verify themselves that what they’ve been screeching about for over two years was false. Nope, they want the full report in order to leak portions that might possibly embarrass Trump. Those in the House know that, since Democrats control the House, there will really be no repercussions for leaking. If they were serious about being serious, they’d simply wait for the report, which will have redactions per law, but, no, they keep reaching
Subpoena Isn’t the Only Way to Get the Mueller Report
The House Judiciary Committee may be sitting on its subpoena for the Mueller report, but under federal law, certain other committees need neither a subpoena nor a court order to get access to it and its underlying materials, including grand jury testimony and documents.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should already have certain investigative materials relating to Russian election meddling, in unredacted form, collected by the special counsel, Robert Mueller.
This legal structure was created by a provision in the Patriot Act combined with the notification provisions of the National Security Act. The intelligence committees have a lawful right, virtually unbounded, to foreign intelligence information in the possession of the intelligence agencies of the executive branch.
Federal law requires that the attorney general provide to the director of national intelligence any foreign intelligence information collected during a criminal investigation. Then the director must by law provide it to the intelligence committees of Congress — either by sending a notification or acting in response to a request from the committees. The director has an obligation to inform policymakers, including Congress, of intelligence assessments so that they can take steps to protect the American people.
The Mueller investigation wasn’t a criminal investigation. It was, at its base form, meant to “investigate any links and/or collusion between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”, as well as whatever interference from Russia that occurred. If something arose that was criminal, they could do something about it. So, only a very small portion of the investigation ended up being criminal, and most of that was process crimes, and had nothing to do with foreign intelligence.
The process is not a partisan tool or a method to take down President Trump. It’s about national security.
So, it’s a partisan tool and method to take down the President Trump.
As a nation in 2001 we learned a very painful lesson, that keeping vital foreign intelligence from the intelligence agencies, and ultimately Congress, must give way in the face of potential terrorist attacks.
Yes, Vickie Divoll, who was general counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2001 to 2003 and is a former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center, just compared this to 9/11 (say, which Party put in the rules about sharing intelligence between agencies?)
“Democrats in Congress do not want the full report in order to peruse it and verify themselves that what they’ve been screeching about for over two years was false. Nope, they want the full report in order to leak portions that might possibly embarrass Trump.”
Excellent work! Porter Good manages two lies in the first two sentences!
No, he nails it to the wall.
If there was a there there, Trump would be up on charges, but, there’s no there there, Fatty Nadless and Schiff For Brains have to make up a somewhere there that really doesn’t exist, but, because it’s a nowhere there, a half-truth might be made into a somewhere else until people realize the somewhere is nowhere.
formwiz obviously believes that since he is utterly ignorant of the contents of the report, that is exactly the same as knowing that there is nothing in the report.
“So, only a very small portion of the investigation ended up being criminal, and most of that was process crimes, and had nothing to do with foreign intelligence.“
How does Porter Good know this? Has he read the Special Counsel’s report?
Nope.
So Porter Good must be making sh*t up — ***again.***
That is, of course, sooooo much easier than actually discussing the facts.
So discuss the facts.
Make it less easy.
How does Porter Good know this?
Because even Fake News has said so?
Has he read the Special Counsel’s report?
Maybe he has.
So Porter Good must be making sh*t up — ***again.***
I take it Jeffery got a warning from Teach. None of his “That’s what liars do”.
But the only one who makes it up is Jeffery. Now that’s transference.
Edward Sibley Dutcher,
Are you suggesting that Teach has access to the report? Maybe Trump has passed copies to all right-wingers in media or with a blog.
Are you still claiming that Bill Bear and Elwood is a single commenter?
We think that Edward Sibley Dutcher and formwiz is the same person. But that’s what liars do.
When you type “We think…” to begin a sentence then the assumption would be you are more than one person and Elwood and Bill Bear seems plausible. If you are singular why then do you type in the plural? And when you end with “But that’s what liars do” you really sound like Bill Bear. That sentence was unnecessary and only there as vitriol and insult. You made your point in the previous sentence.
Thanks for the advice.
It’s called the editorial or royal “we”, a nosism, pompous and annoying, right?
A former commenter here used it all the time.
Bill Bear, Zachriel and I are three different commenters. For all we know formwiz is just an alter ego of Teach.
“So, it’s a partisan tool and method to take down the President Trump.”
So, Porter Good isn’t even trying to hide the fact that he lies outright about what other people have said.
So back up your accusation.
“The Mueller investigation wasn’t a criminal investigation… So, only a very small portion of the investigation ended up being criminal”
So the Mueller investigation was a criminal investigation.
Got it.
Wrong. It was a political witch hunt.
Mr. Trump and his lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, both claimed they want the report released.
Congress reviews confidential and classified information daily. It’s imperative that someone other than this dysfunctional and dishonest administration view the report.
News reports reveal that witnesses are afraid of Trump retribution for telling the truth to the FBI.
That couldn’t be nearly as bad as Hillary and Bill retribution.
Congress reviews confidential and classified information daily
and leaks it all over the place.
That’s how the rescue of the Achille Lauro went south.
It’s imperative that someone other than this dysfunctional and dishonest administration view the report.
Why? They’re just going to find a whole lotta nuthin’.
There are laws concerning grand jury secrecy, and one has to wonder: why do the editors of The New York Times and the left in general want to break those laws in this case?
Those laws exist for good reasons; they long predate any hint that Donald Trump was going to run for President.
And the daily hissy fit begins with the Bear insulting our intelligence and ho esty and the little fella’s uh, … well you know.
LOL.
I suspect it is just another trap. If the AG releases the documents, then congress accuses him of breaking the law. If he doesn’t release the documents, they accuse him of contempt of congress. Either way, carefully edited parts of the document get into the press right before the election with no paper trail to who leaked them.
Attorney General William P. Barr said Tuesday special counsel Robert Mueller declined to review the four-page summary of his principal conclusions before the Justice Department sent it to Congress.
“Mr. Mueller did not play a role in drafting the document,â€Â Mr. Barr told a congressional panel. “We offered him the opportunity to review it, but he declined.â€
However, Mr. Mueller’s team is working with the attorney general on redacting confidential information before the full report is released to Congress, Mr. Barr said.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/9/william-barr-robert-mueller-declined-review-letter/
Sorry, liberals have using the terms, “unfortunate incidents of 9/11” and “tragic events of 9/11” for too long to FINALLY call it what they were.
Terrorist attacks.
Which liberals? Name them and provide direct, complete, in-context quotes — with sources.
LOL.
Well, there was always Peter Jennings who always seemed bored by the whole.