• 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!

Ex-FBI Assistant Director: Here's the real reason why the Mueller report should be made public

Cardinal said:
We have a fundamental matter of trust issues. Trump fired Sessions and replaced him with not one, but two, toadies in a row. So while the matter of classified information is itself a normally reasonable concern, now we can't trust that only legitimately classified information will be removed.

So if only AG Barr is allowed to call the shots as to what anybody else sees, then that's a problem that won't stand. It's a situation in which any conclusion short of high crimes will create the very real suspicion that there has been a coverup.

If AG Barr does not see the public trust as an important thing, then that's where we're headed. If he does see the public trust as being important to the institution of the Department of Justice, then he'll compromise by showing everything he's got to a closed-door bipartisan committee.
Click to expand...

Understandable and agree 100%. But how would you reconcile those things? Release it all, 100%, and the damage to our intelligence capabilities be damned? Or would you like some kind of bipartisan team hand-picked by Congress to work on it and release it together? I like that latter option.

But yes...anything short of a 100% release by AG Barr will not be trusted. I will counter that if there is an actual smoking gun, and it doesn't get released, then there will be leaks. Such is the current climate among those today with special access.
 
Fishking said:
Understandable and agree 100%. But how would you reconcile those things? Release it all, 100%, and the damage to our intelligence capabilities be damned? Or would you like some kind of bipartisan team hand-picked by Congress to work on it and release it together? I like that latter option.

But yes...anything short of a 100% release by AG Barr will not be trusted. I will counter that if there is an actual smoking gun, and it doesn't get released, then there will be leaks. Such is the current climate among those today with special access.
Click to expand...

A bipartisan closed-door Congressional committee seems like the only solution. I know that if Schiff, Cummings or Nadler saw the unredacted report and gave their thumbs-up, I would trust the public report a billion times more. Short of that, I don't see how I could trust it at all.
 
tres borrachos said:
The Democrats unanimously voted to make the report public. Senator Graham blocked it.

Yes, let's all look at it. Everyone agrees - except a Republican Senator. You should probably reach out to him with this ex-FBI Director's opinion. Everyone else already agrees with him.
Click to expand...

It is clear that trump told house Republicans to vote for the resolution in order to make them look like they were for transparent government, and then pulled a bait and switch by getting Graham to block it.

This was just far too obvious!!!
 
Fishking said:
Understandable and agree 100%. But how would you reconcile those things? Release it all, 100%, and the damage to our intelligence capabilities be damned? Or would you like some kind of bipartisan team hand-picked by Congress to work on it and release it together? I like that latter option.

But yes...anything short of a 100% release by AG Barr will not be trusted. I will counter that if there is an actual smoking gun, and it doesn't get released, then there will be leaks. Such is the current climate among those today with special access.
Click to expand...

I agree with the bipartisan team, but I'd suggest the 'leak' of a smoking gun buried by Barr (which is the fact situation you presented) is a really GOOD thing that we should applaud as patriotic, principled. If that's what you meant, maybe I misread it.

The other real problem is one the criminal attorneys hammer pretty hard on cases like this is we don't necessarily need 'smoking gun' evidence. Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence, and people get convicted and jailed for long sentences every day on it. And what is compelling 'circumstantial' evidence is perhaps in the eyes of the reviewer of the facts and we should ALL have that opportunity, which you agree with.

:peace
 
JasperL said:
I agree with the bipartisan team, but I'd suggest the 'leak' of a smoking gun buried by Barr (which is the fact situation you presented) is a really GOOD thing that we should applaud as patriotic, principled. If that's what you meant, maybe I misread it.

The other real problem is one the criminal attorneys hammer pretty hard on cases like this is we don't necessarily need 'smoking gun' evidence. Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence, and people get convicted and jailed for long sentences every day on it. And what is compelling 'circumstantial' evidence is perhaps in the eyes of the reviewer of the facts and we should ALL have that opportunity, which you agree with.

:peace
Click to expand...

Mostly I think there's a special place in hell for leakers, because they usually undermine their own case (e.g. both Manning and Snowden leaked piles and piles of classified info, way beyond a targeted whistleblowing type thing). So I'd say that if there was a smoking gun, and it was buried, and a person leaked it in a very specific manner, then I'd have less of a problem with it. But I'm not sure if that person still shouldn't be subjected to certain consequences. I really don't like leakers.

That said, there are some who will have viewed the info that will be able to leak it without consequence. Members of Congress on the Intel Oversight Committee will be privy to the information and, iirc, there is some kind of rule that a Congressman can say w/e they want if they are speaking on the floor, and not face consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom