Jill Wine-Banks says judicial okay not needed. . .

[ariadne0614]

. .to release the full Mueller report. In a WaPo op-ed written with another Watergate prosecutor and published 15Apr, she says a change made in 2002 allows Barr to by-pass the judge and release it to Congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-has-a-clear-legal-path-to-the-full-mueller-report/2019/04/15/1678e6f2-5d31-11e9-98d4-844088d135f2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.27b9aade8cfe

[htuttle]

1. Well, he doesn't want to release it

And he won't.

So the Rule of Law evaporates in a puff of thin smoke.

Poof. Turns out it wasn't all that in the first place. More of a gentleman's agreement. A mere proviso.

[ariadne0614]

3. Of course he doesn't.

The point is, he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with lame excuses and lies. The more we push the truth up to the surface, the harder it is for them. Why make it easy?

[DownriverDem]

29. Barr is

a political hack. He won't release it in full to the House members. They will have to subpoena it.

[qazplm135]

2. But he won't, thus..

you need a court to enforce Congress' order.

[ariadne0614]

4. If that's what it takes, so be it.

On the other hand, wouldn’t it be nice to see Democratic committee chairs assert their authority and demand the report based on power that’s already in their hands?

[qazplm135]

6. and then

when the WH says no, they will need the courts to enforce that demand.

Thus, they will probably want to leave no wiggle room for a court to do otherwise.

Wouldn't you agree?

[ariadne0614]

21. Whatever it takes to corner them is fine with me.

Nevertheless, I want the Dems to demonstrate their authority. Raw power is the only thing the horribles respect.

[ehrnst]

13. You will be happy to know that They have stated they would subpoena it as early as Friday.

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has refrained from issuing subpoenas for the report and the testimony of individuals questioned during Mueller’s investigation — including former White House counsel Donald McGahn and former White House communications director Hope Hicks — until Attorney General William P. Barr releases the report Thursday. But the committee’s Democrats have already made clear that the redacted document Barr intends to release will lack the transparency that lawmakers have demanded and the details that they are prepared to go to court to obtain.

“Obviously,” said Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a senior member of the committee, “we will use the subpoena power to the full extent of the law.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/democrats-could-subpoena-mueller-report-redactions-as-soon-as-friday/2019/04/16/c879f7ea-606c-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.6954dbfb5186

[BSdetect]

14. They ought to have done that immediately when Barr announced his redaction scam

[ehrnst]

16. Actually, they authorized the subpoena on April 3.

It's not unreasonable for an AG to want to redact SOME things - such as personal addresses, names of people mentioned but not implicated, Grand Jury witnesses who asked for anonymity as a condition for testifying, etc, and as has been stated many, many times by Democrats the report is over 400 pages long.

Democrats have shown that they are the reasonable ones here by giving him reasonable time to do this. However, the minute the report hits their desk, and it shows that relevant information and evidence have also been redacted, the subpoena drops. Boom.

One has to offer a positive outcome (no subpoena) for complying, and be consistent in that offer or they have no reason to even come to the table. They also have reason to call you a liar who goes back on a deal, and can't be trusted in further negotiations.

But if you're determined to be disappointed in our Democratic leaders, I'm sure you'll seize on something else.

[ariadne0614]

25. My understanding is that summaries were provided for every section.

If I understood correctly, Mueller and his team, professionals that they are, prepared the report with summaries ready for immediate release without jeopardizing the kinds of information you describe.

[ehrnst]

30. Yes, that's is what has been leaked.

If you are saying that they could release those now, yes, that's true.

However, Congress would like the full report.

[ariadne0614]

22. Yes, like this. n/t

[uponit7771]

5. Barr said he'd release the report under impeachment proceedings

[TruckFump]

8. Hint, hint...all you Dems in Congress listening? EOM

[uponit7771]

10. +1

[ehrnst]

17. Listening to what - that Trump and Barr are DARING them to impeach?

[TruckFump]

18. That's because Billy Bud has sanitized the Mueller report.

Getting the docs to start on Impeachment gives the Congress an UNREDACTED copy of the Report.

IMO, if they do not see everything they need. They can table the impeachment process and continue investigation to get what they need.

[ehrnst]

31. It sounds just like a dare to me. (nt)

[eleny]

11. According to Wine-Banks impeachment proceedings aren't necessary

It's because a foreign power's actions are involved. Given the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, impeachment proceedings aren't necessary to allow the report to be released just to Congress.

She detailed this during her appearance on the Stephanie Miller radio program this morning. Hopefully their discussion will be uploaded to Miller's YouTube channel soon.

[leftieNanner]

15. This is all absolutely true

But the White House will just say NO, MAKE ME! And they will force it into the courts, and they will stall and obfuscate and dodge. They will just continue to say no.

I think our only option may be a leaker. Even if we go the impeachment route, they will still stall and say no.

[mitch96]

26. "White House will just say NO, MAKE ME! And they will force it into the courts, "

I thought congress could impeach BARR for obstruction??
m

[ehrnst]

12. I hadn't heard that. If true, then we KNOW that his boss wants impeachment.

Otherwise that would not have been uttered. Sounds like a dare to me.

[ariadne0614]

23. That's fine, and it misses the point of the op-ed.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Would that include impeaching Barr himself? :)

[TruckFump]

7. Maybe someone should mail a copy of the law to him?

I know I am going to!

[Rhiannon12866]

9. I thought the whole point was to send it to Congress

Isn't that what it was prepared for? That's the way that I understood it - correct me if I'm wrong...

[ehrnst]

19. The special counsel reports to the AG, which is why Sessions

recused himself - he was part of the investigation.

The report is turned over to the AG, who determines what should be released.

However, as the OP states, Congress has a legal recourse, other than impeachment, to demand the full report from the AG.

[sandensea]

20. Jabba-the-Barr treats that report - and his job -

like Jabba-the-Hutt treats Princess Leia.

And we all remember how that turned out.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. That's what I've been saying- no need for court delays

If Barr won’t release the inredacted report, as allowed by law, impeach HIM.

If Mnuchin and Rettig don’t turnover taxes as required by law, impeach THEM.

[Pachamama]

32. +1000

Completely Agree.....

IMPEACH them - including Trump

[jayschool2013]

28. Where's Daniel Ellsberg when you need him?

Somebody, please.

[hughee99]

33. This is the change (from the link)...

Rule 6(e) was amended in 2002 to permit “an attorney for the government [to] .?.?. disclose any grand-jury matter involving .?.?. a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power .?.?. to any appropriate federal .?.?. official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.”

So what she’s saying is that such grand jury testimony exists and that Mueller ignored it.

Also, it would only allow for the release of grand jury testimony relevant to that, not all testimony in the Mueller report.