Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed

Knight3

Suspended
Oct 19, 2018
280
252
Actually not true. That was changed after the BC mess.
Now Congress can get the full report however there are several legal hoops they need to go through and it cannot be made public.

Q: You know how Congress and a colander are alike?
A: The both start with "C" and they both leak.

Crappy Joke of the Day :)
Crappy joke aside, you just reiterated what I said. Congress is entitled to the full report and I never said anything about the entire report being made publicly available. Congress still has to work with the DoJ on what content can be made public and what can't.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
You keep saying that, but it simply is not true that the hacked emails showed that the primaries were “rigged.” And that certainly is not what the Russians are trying to find. They just wanted embarrassing information of any possible form. They were not trying to uncover corruption. They were just trying to hurt Clinton. Equating them with whistleblowers is absurd.
Donna Brazile admitted to giving debate questions to Hillary among other things.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/how-hillary-clinton-rigged-the-democratic-primary-and-may-have-broken-the-law/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2014
3,760
7,339
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Have you ever made pasta before? One of the steps is draining the pasta, and for that, a colander is an excellent tool.

Q: You know how Congress and a colander are alike?
A: The both start with "C" and they are both useful tools.
That is one on how they differ. :D
A colander is useful.
[doublepost=1554483397][/doublepost]
Crappy joke aside, you just reiterated what I said. Congress is entitled to the full report and I never said anything about the entire report being made publicly available. Congress still has to work with the DoJ on what content can be made public and what can't.
I did not. :cool: They are NOT entitled to a full report.
They (Congress) have methods for some members to get full access.
 

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2014
3,760
7,339
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
It is their view, not a legal reason Congress should get the unredacted report.
*snip*
(1) material subject to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the special counsel has referred to other Department offices; (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/when-will-mueller-report-be-released-everything-we-know.html

Congress can cry all they want however unless they want to pass new laws and have the President sign them, there are legal and classified restrictions on what can be released in whole.

*snip*
As Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes notes, this is an entirely reasonable blueprint for redactions: “Barr has laid out a short time frame in which he has promised to make a capacious set of disclosures subject to a few discrete areas of necessary confidentiality.” If there’s any question whether Nadler appreciates this sort of “necessary confidentiality,” one need only look at how he handled similar situations in the past: Back in 1998, the Washington Examiner reported Tuesday, Nadler opposed the release of an unredacted Starr Report because of the importance of protecting “grand jury material” and “people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”
https://thebulwark.com/democrats-are-already-playing-politics-with-the-mueller-report/

Let's look at the GJ issue ...
*snip*
H.R. Haldeman, who had served Nixon as White House chief of staff, sought to block that information from Congress, citing the same grand jury secrecy provision mentioned by Barr. The dispute ended up before a panel of federal appeals court judges in Washington, which ruled 5-1 against Haldeman. The court said Congress clearly needed the material to conduct an effective impeachment investigation, and noted that the Democratic-led House Judiciary committee had taken “elaborate precautions to insure against unnecessary and inappropriate disclosure of these materials.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-subpoena-explainer/explainer-can-democratic-subpoenas-force-the-release-of-muellers-trump-russia-report-idUSKCN1RE2GW

Yet Nadler, Schiff, and other Democrats, most of them, want to release this in whole to the public. I suspect the courts will have a hard time swallowing that. It would likely go to the Supreme Court. This could take years.

Sorry, but even your link is saying that the specific committee's should get access but not the general public. Or all of Congress. Even the courts agree if "elaborate precautions to insure against unnecessary and inappropriate disclosure of these materials". Yet the "Release it all" cry ... is being led by Nadler and Schiff who are basically saying they are not going to follow the courts instructions from the reference. Wow.

Still, there is the Politico bias:
*snip*
But the judiciary and intelligence committees are entitled to everything Mueller has produced, unredacted. Chairs Nadler and Schiff should immediately assert their rights and subpoena the full Mueller report and underlying evidence. And then their important work can begin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennethS

RichardMZhlubb

Contributor
Nov 26, 2010
209
14,711
Washington, DC

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2015
2,455
4,448
Neither action should have happened, but neither rises to the level of “rigging” the election.
It would be nice if well informed people agreed on a floor for acceptable decency, instead of trying to argue "but he (or she) did it first."
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
And Fox News gave Trump questions in advance.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-roger-ailes-trump-megyn-kelly-questions-2019-3

Neither action should have happened, but neither rises to the level of “rigging” the election.
There's much more than just debate questions.

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/

Even super delegates played a role.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_New_Hampshire_Democratic_primary

Sanders won the vote 60/40 yet delegates went 16/15 in NH.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
She won without the super delegates. So it’s irrelevant.
Not necessarily. A lot of those super delegates pledged to her BEFORE the primary. No idea what that did to the rest of the voters.

I will say that many accuse Trump of colluding with Russia in the general. When someone says, he would have won anyway because Hillary was a bad candidate, the response is that the activity was illegal or at the least, cheating. Same applies to Hillary in the primary. Her behavior outlined in the article above shows cheating if not illegal behavior.

To this day, there is more evidence of that than Trump colluding with Russia.
 

RichardMZhlubb

Contributor
Nov 26, 2010
209
14,711
Washington, DC
Not necessarily. A lot of those super delegates pledged to her BEFORE the primary. No idea what that did to the rest of the voters.

I will say that many accuse Trump of colluding with Russia in the general. When someone says, he would have won anyway because Hillary was a bad candidate, the response is that the activity was illegal or at the least, cheating. Same applies to Hillary in the primary. Her behavior outlined in the article above shows cheating if not illegal behavior.

To this day, there is more evidence of that than Trump colluding with Russia.
You haven't posted anything that describes anything illegal. The article you posted consists mainly of complaints about the media and a bunch of vague arguments about the structure of the primary process that she claims (with no real support) helped Clinton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,277
I'm glad the Russians (or Wikileaks) hacked the Podesta/DNC emails.

How else would we know that Hillary colluded with the DNC to rig the primary against Bernie?

Not a single point in those emails has been refuted.

Putin and/or Assange should get the Pulitzer for that.
What’s sad is how Republicans now worship Wikileaks while dismissing our own intelligence communities, FBI, CIA all take a back seat to Russian propaganda. Mind you this is the extremists of the party, thankfully most Americans are smarter than that.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,792
USA
What’s sad is how Republicans now worship Wikileaks while dismissing our own intelligence communities, FBI, CIA all take a back seat to Russian propaganda. Mind you this is the extremists of the party, thankfully most Americans are smarter than that.
What's sad is favoring one crime over the other.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,119
And Fox News gave Trump questions in advance.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-roger-ailes-trump-megyn-kelly-questions-2019-3

Neither action should have happened, but neither rises to the level of “rigging” the election.
Fox News CEO Roger Ailes tipped off Trump about a 2016 debate question, report claims — the same thing he attacked Hillary Clinton and CNN for
Two of the sources claimed that they were informed of the tip-off by somebody who witnessed it.

Two Fox insiders and a source close to Trump suggested the magazine that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly's questions before the live debate.

The report also suggests that Trump benefitted from advance knowledge of questions

A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question.
Claims, Suggested, Believe, Claimed...all from unknown anonymous sources. We have concrete proof that Donna Brazil gave answers to Hilary. This is not proof but accusations.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,792
USA
Claims, Suggested, Believe, Claimed...all from unknown anonymous sources. We have concrete proof that Donna Brazil gave answers to Hilary. This is not proof but accusations.
And yet when Trump CLAIMS "many people are saying" or just about anything he has no sources for other than the voices in his head - he's somehow credible.

I have no doubt that Mueller's report is more damaging to Trump that the summary. Because details matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,361
UK
Not necessarily. A lot of those super delegates pledged to her BEFORE the primary. No idea what that did to the rest of the voters.

I will say that many accuse Trump of colluding with Russia in the general. When someone says, he would have won anyway because Hillary was a bad candidate, the response is that the activity was illegal or at the least, cheating. Same applies to Hillary in the primary. Her behavior outlined in the article above shows cheating if not illegal behavior.

To this day, there is more evidence of that than Trump colluding with Russia.
She won the popular vote by 10 percentage points...
 

RichardMZhlubb

Contributor
Nov 26, 2010
209
14,711
Washington, DC
Claims, Suggested, Believe, Claimed...all from unknown anonymous sources. We have concrete proof that Donna Brazil gave answers to Hilary. This is not proof but accusations.
Well, how about the fact that Megyn Kelly wrote in her book that Trump called up Fox News the day before the debate in which she asked him about calling women pigs to specifically complain about one of the questions she was preparing to ask him the next day?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
What’s sad is how Republicans now worship Wikileaks while dismissing our own intelligence communities, FBI, CIA all take a back seat to Russian propaganda. Mind you this is the extremists of the party, thankfully most Americans are smarter than that.
I think the FBI and CIA lost all credibility after WMDs. It's right to question them.