General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere it is: Letter Special Counsel Mueller sent to AG Barr
Link to tweet



Botany
(73,153 posts)Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)
Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstanding that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature about the nature and outcome of our investigation.
gademocrat7
(11,293 posts)Yavin4
(36,909 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,718 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,718 posts)...."What the fuck, Bill?"
But alas....
PJMcK
(23,295 posts)Mr. Mueller simply used lawyer-speak.
(wink)
after learning how and why it is done, the sentence accusing Barr of not capturing the context etc translates word for word to "WTF????????????"
William Seger
(11,338 posts)He lied to Congress when he said he didn't know if Mueller agreed with his "summary" -- that's all the reason they need to impeach his ass. Like Trump himself, this cannot be allowed to stand.
Johnny2X2X
(22,226 posts)Mueller wanted it released, all of it.
That half is the damning stuff. We havent seen the report yet.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Mueller didnt ask for the full report to be released, but for his summaries to be released.
Johnny2X2X
(22,226 posts)I dont believe him.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Those will let us make a clear comparison with what Mueller intended to be released initially vs the 4 page Barr summary.
mopinko
(72,153 posts)now.
ffr
(23,142 posts)
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I will support my local "need to impeach" group in making phone calls.
Ramsey Barner
(669 posts)by someone who can't spell "received."
Is someone in the OAG the source?
FailureToCommunicate
(14,386 posts)MythosMaster
(449 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)onenote
(44,923 posts)The notation that the letter was received at OAG might be on a duplicate copy sought and received by the Special Counsel's office. It is quite common in government to hand deliver letters, memos, briefs, etc. and for the sender to ask for and receive a "date stamped" copy for their files as proof of the delivery and receipt of the document.
Can't say for certain if that's the case here, but it wouldn't be surprising and my guess is that the source is someone in the Special Counsel's Office not the OAG.
Javaman
(63,330 posts)Mueller thinks the orange asshole is guilty as shit and the shithead burr tried to wallpaper that over.
yaesu
(8,541 posts)Barr, "I use that word all the time, spy me a beer from the fridge, I spy that TV show a lot, spy me a river..."
BumRushDaShow
(146,986 posts)Barr bullshitted and then LIED claiming that the "enclosures" were the "full report" and the "summaries" were "embedded".
That letter was sent to him AFTER Mueller had already submitted the "full report" and was a result of the 19-page bullshit that Barr put out there and then had a press conference about. I.e., Mueller noted that there was "confusion" being expressed about the report itself due to Barr's "summary".
Whitehouse then demanded that the Committee be given copies of whatever hasn't been given to them already. Hopefully other Senators yet present their questions will harp on this.
TNNurse
(7,219 posts)Pretty sure Barr thought he could, too.
Foolacious
(522 posts)Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 11:58 AM - Edit history (2)
U.S. Department of Justice
The Special Counsel's Office
Washington, DC. 20530
March 27, 2019
<handwriting>Received OAG March 28, 2019</handwriting>
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)
Dear Attorney General Barr:
I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.
Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).
While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release -- a process that our Office is working with you to complete -- that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) ("the Attorney General may determine that public release" of congressional notifications "would be in the public interest" ) .
Sincerely yours,
<signature/>
Robert S. Mueller, III
Special Counsel
Enclosures
SWBTATTReg
(24,751 posts)on Contempt of Congress charges? For failing to comply with providing Congress as requested the full text of Mueller's report and attachments?
George II
(67,782 posts)...dated March 27. ALL before Barr testified on March 28, when he lied about what Mueller told him.
4139
(1,981 posts)Im old... is that wHt they do now a days?
Martin Eden
(13,788 posts)The Attorney General of the United States is a lying sack of shit trying to obstruct justice.
Jarqui
(10,557 posts)calimary
(85,153 posts)I was prepared for yet another arbitrary stonewalling job. Color me somewhat surprised.