Judge orders DOJ to give him unredacted Mueller report

[Shadowferal]

yeah..Barr was just following orders like the paid stooge he is.

[ShmooDude]

Well, Bar didn't redact anything, he wasn't involved in the redaction. Taking aim at Bar personally as well is very misguided and making further assumptions sounds very politically motivated. Anyways, the rule of law will apply, we'll see how this ends.

It doesn't actually matter if Barr redacted anything personally. Barr is the one who ultimately has to assert that the redactions are necessary as Attorney General. The judge is basically saying that since the summary Barr released is "at odds" with the redacted report, that it "calls into question attorney general Barr's credibility." So if Barr isn't credible in the judge's mind, then his assertions aren't any good.

[Rukh]

This is going to be in courts until after Trump is out of office.

[cubby]

This is going to be in courts until after Trump is out of office.

Indeed - there is no hope from the courts at this point. The only issue that could make it to light is his taxes, from the NY-State tax records case. The rest is either gone if he takes another term, or part of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, which will last until Baron's kids are eligible to run for office.

[Xeones]

Just a bunch of hogwash. They lost the war so they're fighting bloody skirmishes on the outskirts. He represented the findings just fine; you can't influence the truth by telling it 3 weeks in advance.

No he literally lied about the findings and told people it was the exact opposite of what the report actually contained. He has no credibility.

- - - Updated - - -

The judge asking for an unredacted version seems normal business but attacking Bar credibility without seeing what was redacted is completely unexpected from a judge who knows about laws and about the fact that redactions are legal and hence attacking the AG credibility for doing something legal isn't inline without how judges are supposed to act or comment on things. It doesn't strike me as "everyday business" or as an innocent comment.

He attacked Barrs credibility based on what was public. Barr blatantly lied, he has no credibility to make any claims on the report.

[Crispin]

Barr did not blatantly lie. That's an absurd claim.

You obviously have no idea of what's in the report then. He lied.

https://time.com/5798380/william-bar...dge-criticism/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report#Findings

And it's absurd that Barr lied, it's not a claim it's a fact.

[Beefhammer]

This is going to be in courts until after Trump is out of office.

Feb 2021 isn't that far away.

[solinari6]

So has there been an official response from Barr about this yet? Did he appeal? Just ignore it?

[Orbitus]

The judge asking for an unredacted version seems normal business but attacking Bar credibility without seeing what was redacted is completely unexpected from a judge who knows about laws and about the fact that redactions are legal and hence attacking the AG credibility for doing something legal isn't inline without how judges are supposed to act or comment on things. It doesn't strike me as "everyday business" or as an innocent comment.

Barr's credibility is NON-EXISTENT. Especially since his shit 19 page memo that he wrote for a job application before the Mueller report was released.

[Dacien]

Well, Bar didn't redact anything, he wasn't involved in the redaction. Taking aim at Bar personally as well is very misguided and making further assumptions sounds very politically motivated. Anyways, the rule of law will apply, we'll see how this ends.

Josh Hammer made a great point in the New York Post that, "...a joint statement last May by DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and special counsel spokesman Peter Carr made clear that there was “no conflict” between the statements made by Barr and Mueller with respect to the underlying legal question at the time..."

Further, "...the redactions were made in consultation with lawyers on Mueller’s special counsel team — which disproves any alleged legerdemain or political intent on Barr’s part."

I'm always hesitant to go on the "activist judge" line, because that's the refuge of a person who just doesn't like the ruling, but in this case, holy crap. The outburst wasn't even relevant to the hearing.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/09/judges...liticking/amp/

[Orbitus]

Josh Hammer made a great point in the New York Post that, "...a joint statement last May by DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and special counsel spokesman Peter Carr made clear that there was “no conflict” between the statements made by Barr and Mueller with respect to the underlying legal question at the time..."

Further, "...the redactions were made in consultation with lawyers on Mueller’s special counsel team — which disproves any alleged legerdemain or political intent on Barr’s part."

I'm always hesitant to go on the "activist judge" line, because that's the refuge of a person who just doesn't like the ruling, but in this case, holy crap. The outburst wasn't even relevant to the hearing.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/09/judges...liticking/amp/

I think I found your problem. You are reading shit opinions from morons that post in the New York Post. A guy from the "First Liberty Institute", whatever the fuck that is. Apparently it is the "largest non-profit legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious liberty for all Americans", which means he has a shitty opinion on something he is not an expert of.

Sounds like they are an Anti-LGBT hate group as well, who would have though that a religious liberty group, was looking for a way that they could gain legislative traction to get their "liberty" to hate gays and transexuals again". https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...ivities-122117


So, in short, that moron should be ignored. Not only because he has shit opinions, but because his assertions were wrong. We already know the statements made by Barr about the Mueller report were wrong.

[Yuujin]

The judge asking for an unredacted version seems normal business but attacking Bar credibility without seeing what was redacted is completely unexpected from a judge who knows about laws and about the fact that redactions are legal and hence attacking the AG credibility for doing something legal isn't inline without how judges are supposed to act or comment on things. It doesn't strike me as "everyday business" or as an innocent comment.

I might have misread but I believe the judge was commenting on Barr's summary versus what was discussed once the document was released.

So the credibility being called into question is not so much about the redacting process but rather if the summary was accurate or not.

[Breccia]

Appeals court rules DOJ must give Mueller grand jury materials to Congress

Hmm.

"In short, it is the district court, not the Executive or the Department, that controls access to the grand jury materials at issue here. The Department has objected to disclosure of the redacted grand jury materials, but the Department has no interest in objecting to the release of these materials outside of the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, which as discussed, do not outweigh the Committee’s compelling need for disclosure.

The vote was 2-1, with a W and Obama judge for, and a Trump against.

[Levelfive]

I might have misread but I believe the judge was commenting on Barr's summary versus what was discussed once the document was released.

So the credibility being called into question is not so much about the redacting process but rather if the summary was accurate or not.

Or, rather, that the summary was so contrary to the actual contents of the report that Barr effectively compromised his credibility on every part of it.

[Jotaux]

Just a bunch of hogwash. They lost the war so they're fighting bloody skirmishes on the outskirts. He represented the findings just fine; you can't influence the truth by telling it 3 weeks in advance.

The Mueller report clearly states that Trump is not not guilty, the fact that you seem to think the report cleared him is proof enough it was misrepresented to the public.

[Edge-]

Oh, I didn't notice there was an actual case there ...

So you didn't read anything and just started blindly commenting and asserting "facts"?

I thought this judge issued this statement out of blue.

Because...there's a history of federal judges openly commenting on active cases being handled by other judges?

Well, in that case, it's still a one-judge opinion. Why it isn't two?

...What are you even asking here? Do you know how our judicial system even works?

Well not much, we'll see how this case go but I personally find his statement a bit misguided particularly because he is unaware of the redacted portion. You shouldn't make assumptions about the redacted portion as a judge unless well you're just one of those politically biased judges.

Again, did you even read anything? He's requesting the redacted portion to see what is in there, because based on the unredacted portions Barr potentially intentionally misrepresented the findings.

Do politically biased judges exist?

This is a Bush appointee. Get this weak-ass shit outta here.

Well if you ask the dems, they tell you yes they do because they view some of the supreme court judges as biased.

Quick, distraction squirrel! Look over there! Something totally different and unrelated! SQUIRREL!

Let me know when you have a valid point to make and not lame-ass "whataboutism" that's irrelevant.

Probably killed by the supreme court because it's obviously biased and this judge is not!!

This fanfiction was not worth the read.

[Levelfive]

I think the most notable and newsworthy part is that a member of the judiciary, appointed by a Republican, said out loud the thing that most other Republicans are pretending they don't know better about.

[Edge-]

https://nypost.com/2020/03/09/judges...liticking/amp/

Let's analyze!

In 2017, as President Trump took office, anti-Trump activists vented rage with pussy hats and other leftist agitprop.

Bush appointed judge. This is painfully dishonest and Hammer opening the article by setting up the judge as some leftist activist. He's fucking not and even the insinuation to that effect is dishonest as fuck.

But the real work of the #Resistance has been carried out by holdover bureaucrats in the executive branch — and activist judges roaming far beyond their constitutional remit.

Unsupported conspiracy theories by literally the SECOND FUCKING SENTENCE. And this is the guy you think we're supposed to take seriously?

He also openly questioned whether Barr’s politicized “intent was to create a one-sided narrative” about the report.

Which, if anyone has been paying attention, isn't a new allegation. And it's one with credibility behind it.

Also, remember - Barr's letter asserted "no collusion". That was not something that Mueller investigated specifically and he clarified this after the letter was released, which calls into question why Barr felt the need to insert that "finding" despite it not existing in the report.

See: Mueller's letter to Barr voicing his strong disapproval of Barr's press conference detailing the findings, before the report was public.

Also see: Barr's/the DoJ's frequent meddling in affairs related to Trump (Roger Stone) and his extravagant spending at Trump properties, which as the countries top lawyer he should know is an egregious conflict of interest.

The judge, who missed his true calling as an MSNBC talking head

Unsupported character assassinations and slander.

First, it was line prosecutors who redacted the Mueller report, not Barr himself.

It was Barr's office, which is led by Barr, and he had final approval. He's there to answer questions about those redactions.

Second, the redactions were made in consultation with lawyers on Mueller’s special counsel team — which disproves any alleged legerdemain or political intent on Barr’s part.

Hello unrelated topic.

The question isn't whether those redactions were appropriate, but whether or not Barr misrepresented the findings in those redacted sections or not. That's why the judge wants to see them.

Both publicly stated that Mueller never concluded that he would have found Trump had obstructed justice but for a DOJ guideline against indicting a sitting president. Put simply, Barr and Mueller were in complete lockstep.

On the conclusion, yes they did - https://thehill.com/policy/national-...n-mueller-barr

But it's not so specific when it comes to the characterization of the report. Again, see Muellers letter to Barr following Barr's press conference.

But perhaps even more important: Who ditched the Framers’ design overnight and made a septuagenarian judge king?

Uh...nobody. This is how our courts work.

A bunch of complaints about the judiciary

Oh this is rich coming from conservatives who have been packing the courts for years. It's also largely irrelevant and not really supported by anything in his article.

More galling than Walton, Judge Carlton Reeves in Mississippi, a progressive favorite, recently disparaged a pro-life law in the Magnolia State as “pure gaslighting” and reminiscent of Jim Crow.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...on-law-759219/

Mississippi, Reeves writes, ranks as the state with the most [medical] challenges for women, infants and children “but is silent on expanding Medicaid.” He notes that the state’s leaders are eager to impose restrictions in the name of saving lives, “but choose not to lift a finger to address the tragedies lurking on the other side of the delivery room: our alarming infant and maternal mortality rates.”

Reeves places the ban squarely in context, writing “legislation like H.B. 1510 is closer to the old Mississippi — the Mississippi bent on controlling women and minorities.” He draws parallels to the state’s passage in 1928, of a law legalizing sterilization individuals deemed undesirable by the state — a law that ultimately led to six-in-10 black women in one Mississippi County to be sterilized against their will.

He notes, too, that the state was the last to ratify the 19th amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote: while two-thirds of the states ratified the amendment back in 1919, making it federal law, Mississippi didn’t follow suit until 1984. Until just a few decades ago, he writes, Mississippi barred women from serving on juries, “so they may continue their service as mothers, wives, and homemakers.”

Yeah, the author can get this hypocritical pearl clutching bullshit right outta here. Judge Reeves is extremely correct in their ruling.

And this is to say nothing of the *astounding intellectual trickery (and lawlessness) of the judicial #Resistance’s favorite disruptive tool: issuing “nationwide injunctions” to stop Team Trump policy initiatives.

Literally blaming routine judicial behavior - injunctions - on leftist judges.

An unhinged opinion, and we're supposed to take this guy seriously?

This article is top quality garbage from top to bottom.

[Xeones]

Barr did not blatantly lie. That's an absurd claim.

Why are you lying?

The Barr summary of the report in no way shape or form was representative of the actual report that was released.

[Dacien]

@Edge- After what they did with the Trump/Russia accusations, I can't believe this is a thing.

They hamstrung his first term on a garbage accusation, then when it was shown to be garbage, they complained that Barr didn't describe it the way the wanted. Just no shame. No shame at all.

No matter what happens, I always have to filter everything through "Yeah but they f*&$!ed over his first term on some garbage that even I could tell was garbage, so I'll give Trump a little leeway here." So keep it up, judge, it just makes me very, very sympathetic to Barr.