• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge demands unredacted Mueller report, questioning Barr's 'credibility'

JasperL said:
Information allows us to make informed choices when voting. That's why we have an FOIA law.

It's amazing how invested you Trump people are in this thread to unaccountable secrecy on behalf of your government.
Click to expand...

It's all about the Kool-Aid.
 
JasperL said:
What's fascinating to me is how uniformly wrong so many of our Trump people are on this thread. I wish we could do like coronavirus and trace the misinformation back to the source, Right Wing Hack Patient Zero. There has to have been an article/Hannity segment/Trump tweet/etc. that deliberately misstated the issues of the case - seems impossible for several people to get something so completely wrong consistently from person to person... :confused:
Click to expand...

Trump once said, "I love the uneducated" Now we can see just why.
 
Bullseye said:
Motivation is absolutely relevant? It's a blatant attempt at one last chance at getting Trump before the elections. They're still grasping at any straw because they see there chances at honestly winning the election fading away.


Why does a judge have to check Barr's work? Particularly that four page summary he released? District judges don't check the AG's work.
Click to expand...

One last chance ???? Trump has a new scandal every week. The chances will never go away.
 
upsideguy said:
Actually he does. He is presiding over an active FOIA case. He is sitting in judgement of a particular matter that compels him to see the report.



America is being torn apart.... and our unpatriotic Trumpty Dummies are either too ignorant to see it, or simply don't care much for American democracy.
Click to expand...

A judge can't declassify classified material. How many goddamn times do you have to be told that?
 
Glitch said:
AG Barr should tell the judge to ****-off. However, I suspect Barr will say nothing and simply allow this arbitrary deadline to lapse. The courts have no authority to be making such demands.
Click to expand...

If it's classified information the judge has not legal right to it.
 
j brown's body said:
The author of the report criticized Barr for his summary of it.
Click to expand...

Yes. (You're suggesting Mueller was the author. You think he was?)
But he didn't say it was because the contents of any redaction would have made a difference.
Which was my original point.
That the Judge seemed to be fishing for something in the Report that no one claimed was there.
That or the Judge has a different motivation entirely.

The summary was accurate and no one has produced anything that showed it wasn't.
 
The AntiDonald said:
I think the American people have the right to know that the AG is basically a liar. He is a very conservative judge. He smells some sh** coming from Barr and needs to know if the redaction's are to protect Trump or just classified for good reason. It is not Barr's job to protect Trump. He is the peoples lawyer. Trump has his own lawyers.

It's obvious why all the conservatives are attempting to protect Barr. The problem is, most people knew he was lying when he did it. I wish you all luck while the firestorm rains down on the most corrupt president yet. He has polluted everyone that went to work for him.
Click to expand...
You recite the party line very well. :roll:
 
The AntiDonald said:
One last chance ???? Trump has a new scandal every week. The chances will never go away.
Click to expand...

Correction: Lefties, in their desperation to remain relevant, continue to "Look, squirrel!" with their herd of gullible Dembots. You guys fall for it every time.
 
Integrityrespec said:
If it's classified information the judge has not legal right to it.
Click to expand...

Except for federal law which gives the judge the right to view the material, you are correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BlueTex said:
Pointing to something that says otherwise...

[USC02] 18 USC App 9: Security procedures

4. Personnel Security-Court Personnel. No person appointed by the court or designated for service therein will be given access to any classified information in the custody of the court, unless such person has received the appropriate security clearance and unless access to such information is necessary for the performance of an official function. A security clearance for justices and other Article III judges is not required.

Feel free to say, "I was wrong."
Click to expand...

"These revised procedures apply in all criminal proceedings involving classified information, and appeals therefrom, before the United States district courts, the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, and supersede the Security Procedures issued on February 12, 1981."

This is not a criminal proceeding. It's a curious judge. The only entity that can initiate a criminal proceeding here is Congress (i.e. impeachment) or the AG himself. Intel committee members in Congress were already given access to the report. So, it seems to me, unless Congress wants to file for a criminal proceeding against Barr, then the judge can pound sand.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Show us the law givimg him this authority.
Click to expand...

It's a civil action. Someone filed a FOIA request to see the unredacted Mueller Report, and when Barr refused, they sued.

The issue is that it is believed the redactions were not proper, and the only way the judge can rule is to see what was redacted. It boils down to whether or not AG Barr is credible, and given that his 4 page summary of the MR was a misrepresentation to ostensibly protect Trump, the judge believed there is a likelihood redactions could likely be done in the same fashion, not to protect bona fide state secrets, but to protect Trump.

That would be a violation of Barr's oath of office.

Judges have a lot of leeway to subpoena stuff in order to get to the truth so they can make a ruling.


And yes, Judges do get to see classified stuff in order to make rulings

How judges handle classified documents.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Show us the law givimg him this authority.
Click to expand...

YOu asked for it, you got it, but you could have read it in the ruling


Google "de novo" and "In camera review" (a legal term, used in the wording of the ruling, had you read it).

To determine de novo the applicability of the particular
exemptions cited by the government to the withheld documents, the Court has the discretion to
“examine the contents of [ ] agency records in camera.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); see Larson v.
U.S. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 869–70 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“In camera review is available to
the district court if the court believes it is needed ‘to make a responsible de novo determination
on the claims of exception.’” (quoting Juarez v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 518 F.3d 54, 60 (D.C. Cir.
2008))).
Click to expand...


The District of Columbia Circuit has specifically noted that
in camera inspection may be particularly appropriate when either the agency affidavits are insufficiently detailed to permit meaningful review of exemption claims or there is evidence of bad faith on the part of the agency, when the number of withheld documents is relatively small, and when the dispute turns on
the contents of the withheld documents, and not the parties’ interpretations of those documents. . . . These factors identify circumstances under which it would be error for the district court not to review the documents in camera, but they do not present the only circumstances under which the district court may do so. As
the court explained in Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (per curiam), n camera inspection does not depend on a finding or even tentative finding of bad faith. A judge has discretion to order in camera inspection on the basis of an uneasiness, on a doubt that he wants satisfied before he takes responsibility for a de novo determination. . . . The ultimate criterion is simply this: Whether the district judge believes that in camera inspection is needed in
order to make a responsible de novo determination on the claims of exemption. Thus, in cases in which a look at the withheld material itself would be useful, we have fully approved in camera examination of the withheld material by the trial court.
Click to expand...


More precedents were cited, had you read the ruling.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
The courts can make no demands on the Executive Branch, just as the Executive Branch can make no demands on the courts. They are co-equal branches of government.
Click to expand...


You obviously do not know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
It's a civil action. Someone filed a FOIA request to see the unredacted Mueller Report, and when Barr refused, they sued.

The issue is that it is believed the redactions were not proper, and the only way the judge can rule is to see what was redacted. It boils down to whether or not AG Barr is credible, and given that his 4 page summary of the MR was a misrepresentation to ostensibly protect Trump, the judge believed there is a likelihood redactions could likely be done in the same fashion, not to protect bona fide state secrets, but to protect Trump.

That would be a violation of Barr's oath of office.

Judges have a lot of leeway to subpoena stuff in order to get to the truth so they can make a ruling.


And yes, Judges do get to see classified stuff in order to make rulings

How judges handle classified documents.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. My previous post stands corrected.
 
jpn said:
Yeah. Barr. Just the other day, a conservative federal judge called a conservative attorney general a liar whose word can’t be trusted. Doesn't happen very often. But Barr is a special case.
Click to expand...

The DOJ made the effective response, correctly pointing out that redactions were a team effort, which included members of Mueller's team.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The DOJ made the effective response, correctly pointing out that redactions were a team effort, which included members of Mueller's team.
Click to expand...


A tweet is not a response to the court... I suspect their response to the court will be quite different...
 
BlueTex said:
A tweet is not a response to the court... I suspect their response to the court will be quite different...
Click to expand...

Of course.
Much of the ruling, and the affirmative response by many to it, is political in nature...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Of course.
Much of the ruling, and the affirmative response by many to it, is political in nature...
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, any theories on the legal arguments they might use to try to not comply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom