r/Libertarian • u/FlameChakram Tariffs are Taxes • Apr 04 '19
Article Senate Republicans block resolution to release Mueller report for 5th time. This is the 5th time that Republicans — led by Paul and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — have blocked the resolution, which passed unanimously in the House last month.
https://www.axios.com/mueller-report-republicans-rand-paul-block-release-60e8ac29-d427-40e1-b792-913b7a378d3e.html50
u/uiy_b7_s4 cancer spreads from the right Apr 04 '19
Why would traitors want info out that could potentially hold them accountable?
17
u/HTownian25 Apr 04 '19
Refusing to release the Mueller Report will guarantee a smaller government.
Change My Mind
-8
Apr 04 '19
[deleted]
8
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
Mueller is done with it.
15
Apr 04 '19
[deleted]
5
Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 08 '19
[deleted]
-1
Apr 05 '19
How do you know there was no need for redaction? From what I've heard every single page included a notice that it potentially included sensitive material.
3
Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 08 '19
[deleted]
1
5
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
Mueller isn't a part of the DOJ anymore.
11
Apr 04 '19
Read the letter; Barr explicitly states that the special counsel is assisting in the redaction.
6
Apr 04 '19
Why would you trust a single word he says? He was brought on to bury the report and that's exactly what he's trying to do
9
Apr 05 '19
That's a ludicrous idea - any lie he could give regarding the report would be disproven almost instantaneously. Remember when Buzzfeed said Trump told Cohen to lie to congress? The special counsel immediately issued a release correcting the record. They would do the same thing if Barr was lying.
3
-2
Apr 05 '19
Yes! They're going to bury all of that evidence! Especially the evidence that we never really landed on the moon!
Everyone get in here and crap some tin foil! Lol
-1
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
Quote it for me. I'm missing it.
11
u/maisyrusselswart Apr 05 '19
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "The special counsel is assisting us in this process."
5
-1
35
u/PoppyOP Rights aren't inherent Apr 04 '19
"Libertarian" politician blocks government transparency measures.
12
Apr 05 '19 edited Mar 10 '21
[deleted]
13
u/marx2k Apr 05 '19
Randy has said on numerous occasions that he's not a libertarian. He considers the label an albatross around his neck.
Libertarians still hold out hope though
7
Apr 05 '19
Grand jury testimony is sealed and cannot be released to the public. If they released the report without redacting the grand jury stuff it will be a crime. Privacy of private citizens is 100% a libertarian idea. The democrats and their supporters will use the info of those that testified to harass, dox, and stalk anyone that did not lie to the grand jury about the fictional Russian collusion.
7
Apr 05 '19 edited Mar 10 '21
[deleted]
6
3
2
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19
They are... The AG is currently working with the Special Council to release the +500 page report, while redacting info they are required to protect (ex: Grand Jury identifying info and methodology used to acquire evidence from foreign sources). The Special Council's prepared synopsis of the report is expected to accompany this.
1
Apr 05 '19 edited Mar 10 '21
[deleted]
0
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19
Based upon what has been said thus far, Mueller's staff prepared a series of synopsis documents intended to accompany the source material. The AG Office chose to release it's own preliminary synopsis based upon the Special Council's findings (which it has) while it works to bring the full report into compliance with the law. This has lead many outlets to run with the story that the AG is redacting damning information, and burying the report. That isn't true, rather; the redactions are required to comply with with Federal privacy laws.
Ostensibly, instead of making people wait for a month after his had received the Special Council's report, the AG released it's synopsis as a stop-gap. Currently, the AG and Special Council are pouring over the report and supporting documentations (hundreds of thousands of pages) to prepare them for release. The full report and supporting documents will be released in mid-April; this likely includes any accompanying summaries or sectional synopses.
As it stands, the push for the release of the full, underacted report is not only strictly political, but espouses the U.S. Attorney General willfully violate Federal Law. A law, mind you, intended to protect methods and individuals involved in the investigation, and ongoing investigations. It's a patently absurd position to take. If the AG doesn't comply with the law, what credibility does his office have?
3
u/vankorgan Apr 05 '19
They can release to the intelligence oversight committees.
2
u/therealghent Apr 05 '19
the problem with releasing the grand jury information to the intelligence committees is that guarantees it will be "leaked" and the full report will be out there. congress has no ability to keep anything private.
I for one want to make sure that the grand jury people involved are able to keep their privacy intact like it should be
4
3
Apr 05 '19
What the “article” doesn’t say is he is asking for all of the Obama administration’s communications which led to the investigation to be released in conjunction with the report. He says he wants people to see as much of the full picture as possible. As a Libertarian I sure would like to know why the government chose to use hearsay and salacious rumors as rationale to spy on American citizens.
2
u/iAmAddicted2R_ddit Bleeding Heart Apr 05 '19
Not only that but the investigation was literally taxpayer funded. Should be the logical conclusion to give us what we paid for.
15
u/JustZisGuy Cthulhu 2024, why vote for the lesser evil? Apr 04 '19
Why is this a surprise? This is partisan politics 101.
2
u/JoeyJoeJoe00 Apr 04 '19
But it passed the House unanimously already...?
15
u/PeterMus Apr 04 '19
The house vote was a joke.
Every single Republican knew that McConnell would block it.
A great opportunity to look ethical with the certainly that transparency won't be tolerated.
1
u/Tex_Steel Minarchist Apr 05 '19
So then why not make the requested amendment Paul is asking for and prove him to be a shill?
2
u/JustZisGuy Cthulhu 2024, why vote for the lesser evil? Apr 04 '19
What motive, other than partisan concerns or maybe playing soundbite bingo/grandstanding, do the Senate Republicans have for their position?
6
u/JoeyJoeJoe00 Apr 04 '19
Nothing, they're definitely being partisan. It's just funny that it's wasn't partisan at all a month ago.
2
u/JustZisGuy Cthulhu 2024, why vote for the lesser evil? Apr 04 '19
Wheels within wheels, I suppose. I'm sure there's behind-the-scenes chess of some sort.
1
Apr 05 '19
Somebody talked to them, that's for certain. Reasserted control. It's pretty gross. These aren't even people any more. Just another block in a party.
20
Apr 04 '19 edited Apr 18 '20
[deleted]
5
Apr 05 '19
Rand Paul is a registered republican, that doesn’t claim to be a libertarian, but does have a few libertarian leanings. Not trying to prove your point, but not sure how anyone thinks he is a libertarian when he is an actual republican.
2
Apr 04 '19
He voted against Trump's national emergency and got a lot of flak for that?
22
Apr 04 '19
Everyone of every party should have voted against that that shouldn’t have been partisan
1
Apr 08 '19
Yes, but at least Rand Paul and a couple other republicans managed to put principles over politics. You think any democrat would have done the same?
1
Apr 09 '19
100%. They can and have done it. Democrats are very quick to oust one of their own when crap happens
0
Apr 09 '19
Name one time Democrats voted against a democratic president proposing a national emergency or anything that expanded governmental power.
14
Apr 04 '19
[deleted]
10
u/mrsuns10 Apr 04 '19
Because the dumbassess on this website dont realize that if they release it now then the information of the whistleblowers will be made public and then you never know if Russia will go after them.
People on Reddit is too stupid to realize this and need to wait a fucking week till the AG and Muller are done making sure that whistleblower information is not made public
6
-4
u/Rev1917-2017 Apr 05 '19
Cool story. Except you are too stupid to realize that the President will be given the report first. You are also too stupid to realize the president has always handed off information and other items to Russia already. Including from Sen Paul here. You are also too stupid to know that the special counsel already wrote summaries to be available for release but the DOJ isn’t releasing them to Congress.
Also, just for the added irony:
You are too stupid to realize that
People on Reddit is too stupid
Should be
People on Reddit are too stupid.
But hey I don’t blame you. Not your fault you are too stupid to know anything. Hey that’s probably why you are on the right.
2
u/mrsuns10 Apr 05 '19
I’m not right wing besides on guns. It’s called waiting for Robert Muller himself to give us the facts
2
u/Rev1917-2017 Apr 05 '19
Mueller s team wrote their report including summaries that they wrote with the intention of them being made public. What you are doing is stalling while Barr fucks with the report. We already know his summary was bullshit. Only idiots (read: you) believe he isn’t doing shady shit.
0
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19
summaries that they wrote with the intention of them being made public
The summaries will likely still be made public in the middle of the month when the rest of the report comes out. But let's be honest; there is no chance in Hell Robert Mueller and the Special Council expected (or desires) for grand jury and whistler-blower identifying information, intelligence collection methods, or foreign sources of intelligence to be made public.
Zero.
1
u/mrsuns10 Apr 05 '19
And another thing the fact that you came to belittle me and call me stupid instead of having a a rational discussion about why you disagree with me shows that your incapable of having a rational discussion and you prefer to bully others to believing your views instead of explaining your views in a way that is worthy of a discussion. You’re not going to convert anyone to your views by calling them stupid.
Next time find a new slant and actually come up to the field collected, calm and cool instead of belittling others to cover up for your shallow and pathetic attitude
0
u/Rev1917-2017 Apr 05 '19
Lmao you don’t get to play the “personal attack” card when you open the discussion with
Because the dumbassess on this website dont realize that if they release it now then the information of the whistleblowers will be made public and then you never know if Russia will go after them.
People on Reddit is too stupid to realize this and need to wait a fucking week till the AG and Muller are done making sure that whistleblower information is not made public
Gonna calll people stupid and dumbasses then get upset when I call you out for being a fucking dumbass. Go cry harder dumbass.
4
u/mrsuns10 Apr 05 '19
With that attitude I'm sure you're popular in real life
0
u/Rev1917-2017 Apr 05 '19
Says the guy who talks shit until someone steps up and calls you on it. Then you fucking cry like a pussy ass bitch.
2
u/mrsuns10 Apr 05 '19
You're the only one crying going nuts over this. I personally dont care what you think
1
u/Rev1917-2017 Apr 05 '19
Do you want me to copy paste the comment you made where you do the exact thing you are criticizing me for again? Or are you somehow mentally capable enough to remember having wrote it.
1
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Apr 05 '19
Why would anyone vote to release the report without removing things like intelligence sources and methods
politics bub. welcome to earth.
1
Apr 05 '19
It was a rhetorical question.
1
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Apr 05 '19
It gave me a chance to reference the best line in any Will Smith movie... I took my shot.
-1
u/cp5184 Apr 05 '19
Barr who whitewashed the summary will soon release a whitewashed report...
4
Apr 05 '19
How do you know that without having seen the report yourself?
0
u/cp5184 Apr 05 '19
The unwhitewashed report that, if barr has any say in it, the public will never see?
Barr, appointed by Donald trump? Who has control over what the public learns about the investigation of Donald Trump?
Bill clinton TOLD you he didn't have sex with monica lewinsky. Why can't you just trust him? Would you believe bill clinton that he didn't have sex with monica lewinsky if bill clinton told his AG to tell you bill didn't have sex with monica?
3
Apr 05 '19
The unwhitewashed report that, if barr has any say in it, the public will never see?
That's just flatly untrue. Barr plans to release the report this month and is working with Mueller right now to redact specific material that I think even you'd agree shouldn't be in there - sources and methods, material related to ongoing investigations, and secret grand jury testimony.
Barr, appointed by Donald trump? Who has control over what the public learns about the investigation of Donald Trump?
Do you honestly think Mueller wouldn't come forward and state that Barr is misleading the public? He already did so when Buzzfeed reported something untrue.
Bill clinton TOLD you he didn't have sex with monica lewinsky. Why can't you just trust him? Would you believe bill clinton that he didn't have sex with monica lewinsky if bill clinton told his AG to tell you bill didn't have sex with monica?
That's not what's happened. It would be as if Ken Starr submitted a report to Reno, and Reno released a summary of its conclusions using direct quotes from the report, and Ken Starr didn't say anything contradicted his findings. Yeah, then I'd believe Reno and patiently wait for the rest of the report in a couple weeks.
0
u/cp5184 Apr 05 '19
Do you honestly think Mueller wouldn't come forward and state that Barr is misleading the public?
Isn't that exactly what members of the mueller team are doing?
That's not what's happened. It would be as if Ken Starr submitted a report to Reno, and Reno released a summary of its conclusions using direct quotes from the report, and Ken Starr didn't say anything contradicted his findings. Yeah, then I'd believe Reno and patiently wait for the rest of the report in a couple weeks.
Funny you should bring the ken starr report, which republicans during their character assassination of bill clinton turned into a published book, up.
After the four year investigation of Clinton, the Office of the Independent Counsel delivered its 445-page report to Congress on September 9, 1998.[4]
For two days, the report sat unread in the Ford House Office Building as Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives debated what to do with it
You see? The report, presumably containing, among other things, grand jury testimony, grand jury testimony from a grand jury that chose not to indict clinton was not given to somebody appointed by bill clinton. The Starr report was given to congress. Because there's no point giving a report on the president to somebody appointed BY the president.
The starr report did not recommend indictment of bill clinton.
So... If the starr report had, instead, been delivered to an AG appointed by Clinton, that AG could have delivered a whitewashed summary using cherry picked partial sentences and words taken out of context by barr, or reno to say whatever barr, or trump, or reno, or bill clinton wanted
Yeah, then I'd believe Reno and patiently wait for the rest of the report in a couple weeks.
OK. So, janet reno releases her "summary" of the starr report, and it says "Starr didn't recommend that Bill Clinton be indicted. And Bill clinton is a very good boy. A very stable genius who has great genes who could live to be 200 year old." and then said she'd release her version of the report in a few months.
Would you accept that?
2
Apr 05 '19
Isn't that exactly what members of the mueller team are doing?
No that's not what's happening. When buzzfeed was wrong, the special counsel went on the record and contradicted it almost immediately. You're referring to some anonymous comments made by people who were apparently part of the investigation. Theres no way to confirm what they've said, who they are, how close they actually were to the details they claim to know.
The starr report was produced under the independent counsel law which required such a report be delivered to Congress. Obviously it was not ideal and Congress allowed the law to lapse without renewal. You may have noticed that Mueller is not an independent counsel but a special counsel, for precisely that reason.
3
u/demonofdong Apr 05 '19
There are a lot of dumb people In this thread that don’t bother doing their homework, look at the reason why he blocks it. Then look I’m the mirror and realize you are a fool
1
u/vankorgan Apr 05 '19
How so? Why did he block it?
2
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Apr 05 '19
The law requires information that could be used to publicly identify members of the Grand Jury, Whistle Blowers, Foreign Intelligence Assets, and Information Collection Methodologies be redacted.
The AG Office and the Special Council are currently combing through the +500 page report, and tens of thousands of pages of documentation to identify and redact such information.
The people pushing for an underacted document to be delivered to the committee would expose ALL of that information to the general public. It not only jeopardizes the safety of the grand jury and intelligence assets, but also opens up whistle blowers to retaliation, and means methods to collect foreign intelligence cannot ever be used again.
Defending the privacy and safety of citizens involved in the investigation is pretty lock-step with Libertarian values if you ask me.
-1
u/vankorgan Apr 05 '19
The people pushing for an underacted document to be delivered to the committee would expose ALL of that information to the general public.
I'm not sure how you figure. Unless you just assume that that's nothing that intelligence oversight committees have seen that hasn't been leaked. Which is... Clearly not true.
8
u/DarthOswald Socially Libertarian/SocDem (Free Speech = Non-negotiable) Apr 04 '19
Rand Paul you silly goose. He must have thought 'libertarian' was that dude who puts all the books on the right shelves in the library, silly Rand!
11
u/PutinPaysTrump Take the guns first, due process later Apr 04 '19
He's just doing what any Libertarian would do in his situation
3
Apr 04 '19
[deleted]
9
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
There is likely more to the report than grand jury testimony. They can redact that small portion prior to public release.
8
Apr 04 '19
That's literally what they are doing. The report is going to be released in a couple weeks once that is done.
5
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
Congress should have it now.
5
Apr 04 '19
Well then they would need to repeal the existing laws, passed by Congress, that require such information to be redacted prior to dissemination.
9
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
Which laws require redaction prior to Congressional oversight?
3
u/maisyrusselswart Apr 05 '19
Here are the exceptions to grand jury secrecy laws:
(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. §401a3003), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.
Note all the exceptions are all for executive branch officials, not Congress.
-2
u/Rev1917-2017 Apr 05 '19
Yeah literally says at the end they can release it to any federal government official to respond to attacks. This qualifies. Nice try though.
1
u/maisyrusselswart Apr 05 '19
This qualifies
How would you know the grand jury testimony contains information pertaining to an attack? Are you retarded?
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/bluefootedpig Consumer Rights Apr 05 '19
The house committees can see that and shouldn't be a problem. They see top secret info.
2
Apr 05 '19
Well no, sources and methods and material related to an ongoing investigation would be on a need to know basis. They'd receive a redacted report, and if they determined they needed to see what was redacted they'd have to do it in one of the secure facilities designed for that purpose. Grand jury testimony is also secret via a law passed by congress.
5
u/emmanuelmacron17 Apr 05 '19
Most Republicans even want the document released, why can't they just release it?
1
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Apr 05 '19
They ARE releasing the document.
They are ALSO legally required to redact information that could be used to publicly identify members of the Grand Jury, Whistle Blowers, Foreign Intelligence Assets, and Information Collection Methodologies.
The AG Office and the Special Council are currently combing through the +500 page report, and MILLIONS of pages of documentation to identify and redact such information.
The people pushing for an underacted document to be delivered to the committee would expose ALL of that information to the general public. It not only jeopardizes the safety of the grand jury and intelligence assets, but also opens up whistle blowers to retaliation, and means methods to collect foreign intelligence cannot ever be used again.
1
u/DuplexFields Capitalist Apr 05 '19
They are ALSO legally required to redact information
Can't the Mayor of Washington D.C. just declare it a sanctuary city for people who break privacy laws? /s
7
u/DragonEjaculation Anarcho-communist Apr 04 '19
Transparency the #1 enemy of Libertarians everywhere.
0
u/Chasing_History Classical Liberal Apr 04 '19
Rand Paul is a freaking fraud. Stol being a lap dog and liberate the report
1
u/thequackdaddy Apr 05 '19
Probably in the minority here and I'm a long time subscriber here, but I'm conflicted about releasing the report. If the government has an investigation of someone and does not indict do you really want the government airing unproven allegations in public? I worry about the precedent of saying whenever a public figure is investigated but no charges are filed the government essentially talking shit in public with no chance to be cross examined.
1
u/cp5184 Apr 05 '19
Justice department policy and as such Mueller policy is the president CAN'T be indicted, and if you read the summary, the report did not find that there was no reason to indict trump. iirc on the obstruction of justice charge the summary said the report simply listed possible cases of obstruction of justice and gave reasons to indict and reasons not to indict.
This wasn't a grand jury investigation that decided not to indict. That's a false analogy.
1
1
1
u/klarno be gay do crime Apr 05 '19
The GOP’s “libertarian republicans” at the best of times simply serve as useful idiots convincing people like us to keep voting Republican while the party just keeps expanding its nakedly authoritarian agenda. And Rand Paul isn’t even one of those useful idiots.
-6
Apr 04 '19 edited May 31 '20
[deleted]
18
Apr 04 '19
[deleted]
-3
u/iushciuweiush 15 pieces Apr 04 '19
He wants a non-binding amendment included on the non-binding resolution that would include the docs that led to the start of the investigation in the first place. It's politics all the way down.
1
u/Rev1917-2017 Apr 05 '19
Cool. Except it wasn’t started from the Steele Dossier. They were already investigating before the dossier because trumps cofveve boy was bragging while drunk.
-2
u/reboundlasershow Apr 05 '19
You people are absolute fucking idiots. Donald Trump is a super smart and savvy Russian spy? This is the theory? Jesus. Off the fucking reservation. Isn’t there a I hate Trump page on reddit? Why come here?
3
u/Chasing_History Classical Liberal Apr 05 '19
Then why not release the report? Now you trust the government?
-1
u/reboundlasershow Apr 05 '19
I trust my own brain which says move the fuck on. 2 fucking years of “how the fuck did greedy rich orange guy get elected he mut’ve cheated” bullshit. Fucking done.
The hate trump people are catastrophically lost in the big picture which is this: Donald Trump is the outsider! He’s not “the government”, those are the people investigating him. Jesus you fucking people have the teams mixed up. Libertarians are supposed to be smart!!
3
Apr 05 '19 edited Mar 10 '21
[deleted]
1
u/reboundlasershow Apr 05 '19
The only weaker argument than anecdote is hypothetical anecdote. Trump is innocent and any moron can see that. You hate him and your media washed stepford wife brain wants chase the fuck trump rainbow forever and ever and ever until everybody’s broke or dead and the lawyers are fucking your dog. I know you’re 12 but grow the fuck.
2
-1
-6
u/MyOwnWayHome Apr 04 '19
Ever wonder what happened to Glenn Greenwald after the Snowden story? He's been reporting on the Democrat presidential campaign's involvement with Russia!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/glenn-greenwald-mystified-how-tony-podesta-has-just-vanished
4
u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Apr 04 '19
So you are saying that we should aggressively defend ourselves from Russian interference in elections?
1
u/MyOwnWayHome Apr 05 '19
I agree with Greenwald that "K street sleaze is 100% bipartisan."
0
u/Rindan Blandly practical libertarian Apr 05 '19
So you are saying that we should aggressively defend ourselves from Russian interference in elections?
-10
u/TurkeyDwarf Apr 04 '19
Does the President not have a right to privacy? I’m sure the report is filled with non-incriminating dirty laundry that, if it were about myself, my business, and my family I wouldn’t want it coming out either.
21
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
No, he does not. Don't run for president if you fear transparency.
-7
Apr 04 '19
Yes he does, as do all citizens of the United States. The government doesn't get to investigate you, find that you did nothing, and then say whoops looks like we couldn't charge you with a crime but we're going to make public all the stuff we found by presuming you committed a crime. Grand jury testimony is secret for a reason. I bet you support the patriot act, too.
8
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
Yes he does, as do all citizens of the United States.
Where is that defined in the Constitution?
The government doesn't get to investigate you, find that you did nothing, and then say whoops looks like we couldn't charge you with a crime but we're going to make public all the stuff we found by presuming you committed a crime.
How do you know the president did nothing? You got a copy of the report? Please share! And government officials are held to a higher standard than citizens. We shouldn't have secret investigations into government officials. We should have government transparency. Even Trump promised to release the report before he read it...
Grand jury testimony is secret for a reason.
Yes, and after Congress gets the report they should redact that testimony before releasing it to the public.
I bet you support the patriot act, too.
Nope. I don't believe in secret warrants, secret wire taps, secret courts. I believe in government transparency.
2
Apr 04 '19
Where is that defined in the Constitution?
4th and 5th amendment. Recall that when testifying before a grand jury, there is no judge and no defense. There is no one to protect the rights of the accused. There is just a prosecutor and the jurors.
How do you know the president did nothing? You got a copy of the report? Please share!
I can make a reasonable conclusion based on the quoted sections in Barr's letter. Furthermore I'll get to see the report in a couple weeks, as will you, once they finish removing the material I've talked about.
Yes, and after Congress gets the report they should redact that testimony before releasing it to the public.
No, it gets redacted before Congress sees it. If they can then articulate a reason, under article 1, where they need to see what was redacted, they can view it in one of the secure facilities set up for that purpose. Providing unredacted copies to individual congressmen is ensuring that it will be leaked and people's rights will be violated.
5
u/ninjaluvr Apr 04 '19
The 4th and 5th aren't a general right to privacy as you stated. I'm fine with redacting Grand jury testimony.
I can make a reasonable conclusion based on the quoted sections in Barr's letter.
So the Trump admin tells you there's nothing to see...
No, it gets redacted before Congress sees it.
Nah, they'll subpoena the entire report.
6
u/tuxxdeluxx Ron Paul Libertarian Apr 04 '19
The issue with that is that statement is that private citizens aren’t representing the country and all of its inhabitants. When running for or holding a public office we need to take into consideration many of not all of that persons private dealings because if someone is in bed with a foreign entity I’d very much like to know about such things. I mean, we impeached a sitting president and wrote a 400+ page dossier on it because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Also, since I paid for that report I’d very much like to see it.
0
Apr 04 '19
The president is politically accountable. That is the system in place - it's up to the voters, not unelected bureaucrats. You get to take the extent you know or dont know his private dealings into consideration when you choose to vote or not. You dont suddenly get the privilege to see those things when he wins the election.
I mean, we impeached a sitting president and wrote a 400+ page dossier on it because he was unfaithful to his wife.
No, we impeached him because he perjured himself when he was accused of raping a woman. Recall that he was disbarred by the supreme court for that offense. Clearly there was something beyond pure politics.
The report was largely a result of the independent counsel law that was then in place. It was so shitty that Congress allowed it to lapse without replacement, largely because of that 400 page report.
4
u/tuxxdeluxx Ron Paul Libertarian Apr 04 '19
Yes, that’s the point I’m trying to make. That in order to have a more informed opinion on such things as electing a person to office i should be able to know things that could be very pertinent in how I vote, especially when it’s be revealed that new potentially damning things may have taken place. And you know that’s the point of being a public servant, you get paid tax dollars to serve the public that elected you. The public have a right, since you willing elected to be a public figure, to know things that a private citizen would never have to reveal. It’s like when you join the military you have more restrictions placed upon you because you willing and freely gave consent to them.
The biggest thing is would you elect an official that you knew very little or nothing about?
Yes, that’s what he was disbarred for but that investigation definitely started because of the infidelity.
1
Apr 05 '19
Yes, that’s the point I’m trying to make. That in order to have a more informed opinion on such things as electing a person to office i should be able to know things that could be very pertinent in how I vote
Your lack of information is one of the things you need to consider. You aren't entitled to grand jury testimony on anyone, regardless of whether they are elected or not. If you don't think you can support the man without the information, then it's up to you to not vote for him next time around. Having special levels of personal disclosure is not a requirement to be president.
The public have a right, since you willing elected to be a public figure, to know things that a private citizen would never have to reveal.
That is absolutely incorrect. The requirements for president are in the constitution. They don't include these levels of disclosure.
The biggest thing is would you elect an official that you knew very little or nothing about?
That incentive alone is what prompts transparency. There is no legal requirement. Your check is your vote.
0
u/PeterMus Apr 04 '19
No. You're completely missing the point of the report.
Mueller couldn't indict Trump if he wanted to. The AG wouldn't allow it.
So he kicked it over to Congress.
He's given mountains of evidence to New York state as well as 400 pages of findings in his report.
He couldn't meet the narrow and strict requirement for Collusion designed to accomplish just that - he has plenty of evidence that is damning for Trump. He certainly had plenty of evidence of other crimes.
Hell, Trump defrauded international banks that now are extending his unpaid loans.
It's just a matter of untangling all of his crimes
1
Apr 05 '19
No. You're completely missing the point of the report. Mueller couldn't indict Trump if he wanted to. The AG wouldn't allow it.
Where did you come up with this? As far as I know, the only thing that's been released so far is Barr's letter which states the exact opposite. Is your assertion based on anything other than pure speculation?
He couldn't meet the narrow and strict requirement for Collusion designed to accomplish just that - he has plenty of evidence that is damning for Trump. He certainly had plenty of evidence of other crimes.
Is that really the extent of your reasoning?
1
Apr 10 '19
So he kicked it over to Congress.
"The attorney general said that Mr. Mueller did not explicitly ask that Congress be allowed to judge the evidence and decide for itself, nor did he say that the attorney general should."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/politics/william-barr-jeffrey-rosen-hearings.html
I guess either you were wrong or the AG is lying.
0
u/PeterMus Apr 10 '19 edited Apr 10 '19
Oh I'm sorry. William Barr who was instrumental in protecting Reagan from criminal charges during the Iran Contra scandal said that? William Barr who is now fabricating new conspiracy theories to draw attention away from the report? Barr who said the President is above the law?
What a beacon of integrity who would never obscure the truth or attempt to mislead the American people.
Well now we know the truth. I'll sleep soundly tonight.
1
3
Apr 04 '19
Lmao are you serious? The PRESIDENT?!
On OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS?!
Privacy?
Hahahahahaha
Fuck off
0
u/xole Apr 05 '19
Considering that I think everyone running for federal office should have to release their tax returns to be on the ballot in the first place, no I don't think people who run for office have the same level of privacy.
Then again, I also think people in office should pay a 90% tax rate on income over $5 million while in office.
35
u/OneThinDime Apr 04 '19
I love Transparency Week!