Last time I looked regarding the Mueller Report, the AG Bill Barr decided to put it under wraps and decline full access by the Dems.
Oh and Trump never got to testify under oath as requested by Mueller. Maybe it’s because it was guaranteed he would commit perjury. He can’t stop lying. If you haven’t noticed
That’s why I’d like Barr, who I regard as corrupt as Trump, to be impeached too. And should be removed from office.
FYI his job is to serve the American people and NOT be another toady for Trump,
Unfortunately Barr has a history of being unlawful, be biased and show himself to be a Reich wing partisan. No wonder Trump hired him in the first place.
Originally Posted by BlisswithKriss
did he? or are you just making shit up? the nearly unredacted report was available to all the ranking Democrats. what did they do? they balked at reading it. so your point was .. what exactly?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...dacted-1295105
Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report
"Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress —
six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday."
"The six Democrats to whom Barr offered access to the report boycotted en masse, complaining that Barr should have provided a fully unredacted report to a broader set of lawmakers investigating Trump’s conduct. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has subpoenaed Barr and the Justice Department for the full report and Mueller’s underlying evidence"
the Dems wanted the entire report released, unredacted, as political fodder against Trump. guess who changed the rules to prevent that during Clinton's impeachment?
Rep. Jerry Nadler in his own words in 1998 on the release of Kenneth Starr Report on Bill Clinton
https://saraacarter.com/rep-jerry-na...-bill-clinton/
Charlie Rose: New York City and a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman Nadler, thank you for joining us. Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): It’s a pleasure.
Charlie Rose: Tell me where we– about this day and a sense of what it was like to be in the House and the anticipation of this arriving and where we go from here. Rep.
Jerrold Nadler: Well, we were just– the House was just reassembling today. We haven’t been in session for a month, so people were just arriving. I just got here in mid-afternoon, after having a series of meetings in New York. But we did get the report, which is now in the hands of the sergeant-at-arms under armed guard. It’s 36 boxes. We’re told it’s two copies, so it means 18 boxes per copy. There is, I gather, a 400- or 500-page report and the balance is appendices and supporting materials. Now, Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material,
that is material that by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. So, I assume what’s going to have to happen before anything else happens is that somebody — the staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority member —
is going to have to go over this material, at least the 400 or 500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is, as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all. Now, the House Rules Committee will be meeting overnight, and I presume that we will vote tomorrow probably on a recommended rule as to how to handle the report.
Nadler's Precedent: Exonerating Bill Clinton
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/t...g-bill-clinton
"Are we going to have a new test if someone wants to run for office: Are you now or have you ever been an adulterer?" he said.
The date was Dec. 19, 1998. The House was considering articles of impeachment that the Judiciary Committee had approved against then-President Bill Clinton.
The outraged individual, speaking on the House floor, was Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York.
Nadler now serves as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has vowed he will follow up on the now-concluded investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller — which found no crime committed by President Donald Trump.
BAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA
