Mueller Report Finally Released...

Trump Misstates Nadler's Position on Starr Report - FactCheck.org

 

Congress was given the full Starr report and all its supporting materials in 1998. On the other hand, Congress has not received the full Mueller report and its supporting materials, and Barr is not proposing to do so.

Nadler did say that not all of the Starr report could be released to the public in 1998, but he also acknowledged that probably won’t happen with the Mueller report, either.

 

Anyone think the Dems won't leak untrue material by witbesses, salacious material true or not , all kinds of naterial that would be unfair to print if it makesTrump look bad.
Another Dem Spartucus.

 

So we can assume by your premature outrage, Horn 6721, that you were equally exercised when the Starr report was given to Congress? I just need that data point to properly calibrate my hypocrisy meter, since you guys are all firing yours up to examine Nadler.

 

For the record, I thought the Start Report should have been released but with redactions for evidence that should be kept private under law. Ditto for the Mueller Report. Just follow the friggin' law. Not sure why that's hard.

 

My data point?
The Starr report should have been released with the exceptions Nadler listed then.
Release from the Mueller report what can be released using the same criteria.
No hypocrisy.

 

I assume by your response that you agree that Nadler is a shameless hypocrite?

 

Does he need to change his screen name to Horn666?

 

PE
Thanks I missed that.
If my head swizels 360 or I puke green vomit i know to call tower.

 

Another biased "fact check" site. That's so 2016.

 

I'm not sure I caught all that, Lara, could you please repeat that point?

Seriously though, the fact that she's not something of a hero to feminists speaks volumes about the intersectional alliance and how it works.

 

On that point, you'd never guess that Fox News has Black hosts and regular conservative commentators who are Black unless you spent time watching it.

According to the left, Fox is a bunch of white racists.

 

It is amazing how they all march in unison in the face of something like this.
Zero individuality.
Zero independent thought.
Banal thinking is rewarded.
Anyone who dares step out of line gets an avalanche of crap.
These are the kind of people who produce Marxism/Socialism (aka the biggest killers in human history)
It is important to never let them win elections at any level.

 

That is exactly Nadler's position.

 

He probably is a shameless hypocrite, but not because of the the 1998 interview. Nadler's position was not and is not what Fox and Friends and the Washington Examiner et al. stated, and Trump repeated. Nadler's position on the Starr Report was that Congress should review the report and Grand Jury material and other protect-able material should be redacted before it was release to the public. Would he have over-redacted if given the opportunity? Probably. But the fact is:
"Congress was given the full Starr report and all its supporting materials in 1998. On the other hand, Congress has not received the full Mueller report and its supporting materials, and Barr is not proposing to do so.
Nadler did say that not all of the Starr report could be released to the public in 1998, but he also acknowledged that probably won’t happen with the Mueller report, either." If Nadler had arranged for the report to have been kept from Congress, except for a "summary" prepared by Janet Reno, and only Reno's summary had been released to the public, your claim of hypocrisy would be of on firmer ground. Until Congress is given the entire report and exhibits, as they had already been in 1998 when Nadler spoke his words as partially quoted, then the situations are not analogous. Don't worry, he has plenty of time to be a hypocrite, and catch up with the Republicans on this issue.

 

One question. How long did Reno wait after Starr submitted his report to provide it to Congress?

I ask because I don't think the short period of time that Barr has had Mueller's report without submitting it to congress is particularly worrisome. Maybe precedent will prove me wrong.

 

Sangre said:"One question. How long did Reno wait after Starr submitted his report to provide it to Congress? I ask because I don't think the short period of time that Barr has had Mueller's report without submitting it to congress is particularly worrisome. Maybe precedent will prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]

Now that I've had some exercise, and exorcised my spelling demons (through aggressive use of the "edit" button) , I looked it up:
"On Sept. 9, 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr presented a long-awaited report concerning his investigation of President Bill Clinton to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Two days later, on the afternoon of September 11—a decade ago today—the committee released the entire report on the Internet."

Remember, though, that the Starr Report went directly to Congress, and Reno did not review it before presentation to Congress - different statutory context. My comments about Reno were merely intended to show what WOULD constitute a parallel situation, and hypocrisy by Nadler, which was the point of this part of the meandering thread. I don't have a problem with some delay, so long as the entire report goes to the appropriate committees, even if not the full Congress. I also don't like it when someone is accused wrongly of hypocrisy, as Nadler has been. I know almost nothing about Nadler, but he is being unfairly attacked here. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...sent-the-starr-report-and-clinton-impeachment

 

My bad. I assumed everyone here knew how to use the interwebs. I’ll help you with this link to a biased, fact based archive. I know, facts are so dated. Rep. Jerrold Nadler - Charlie Rose

 

Appreciate the perspective. I agree with you the entire report should be released to Congress (with redactions as appropriate) and to the public. After all, the public spent millions of dollars paying for the damned thing.

 

Just probably? LOL! You really want to believe don't you. Nadler was one of only 63 Democrats who voted against release of the Starr report. He is a transparent and shameless hypocrite.

 

Do you ever bother to read what is posted before you react to it? Let's review what I said before:

"Until Congress is given the entire report and exhibits, as they had already been in 1998 when Nadler spoke his words as partially quoted, then the situations are not analogous. Don't worry, he has plenty of time to be a hypocrite, and catch up with the Republicans on this issue."

The current issue concerns Congress being permitted to see the Mueller Report. The 1998 vote that you referenced concerned the timing of the release of the Starr Report to the public, after Congress already had it. I have not seen anyplace that Nadler has demanded that an unredacted Mueller Report be released to the public. Until Congress has reviewed the Report, he will not have had the opportunity to be hypocritical in the manner suggested in this thread - he might get there. Your sputtering outrage is a bit premature, at best. Please show me where he has demanded the immediate release to the public of the entire Mueller Report and exhibits. Please show me where he has demanded that the report be released to the public before the president's staff has had an opportunity to review the report and comment to Congress concerning redactions. That would be hypocrisy. If he has done so, I will gladly reassess. He has demanded that the appropriate congressional committee receive the report, as was done with the Starr Report. Why is that hypocritical? Did you support release of the Starr Report 1) to Congress and 2) to the public, after appropriate redactions? Do you have a similar position on the Mueller report?


Speaking of hypocrisy, didn't Donald Trump already come out months ago in favor of releasing the full report to the public? Didn't the House vote 420-0 on a Resolution to release the full report - before it had been issued by Mueller? (again, not the current issue: release to Congress, but interesting when playing the HYPOCRISY! game. )

 

The House democrats in 1998 voted 2-1 to release the Starr report. Nadler was one of only 63 Democrats to vote against publicly releasing the report. Even Bernie Fn Sanders voted to release it. This is after confidential information was already redacted. He voted against releasing it because it contained "salacious" information and other BS partisan reasons. Only a fool would believe otherwise. He's a hypocrite and so are you.

 

My, we have anger problems, don't we. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between releasing the Mueller Report to Congress, and releasing the unredacted Starr Report (which was already in the hands of Congress) to the public - yes, unredacted. Both the Jaworski Report and the Starr Report were transmitted to Congress unredacted, including grand jury testimony, within a few days of completion. As for release to the public, (I do hope that you are keeping up, since thus far you have been unable to understand the difference) you are just wrong concerning Nadler's vote. See the link to the Resolution below, section 2. The resolution concerned the entire unredacted 455 page report.

I went back and re-read what I have posted on this thread to understand what I said that makes me full of crap, a fool and a hypocrite in your angry partisan warrior eyes. I think you need to improve your reading skills. I look forward to your next sputtering outrage.Text - H.Res.525 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Providing for a deliberative review by the Committee on the Judiciary of a communication from an independent counsel, and for the release thereof, and for other purposes.

 

Do you really believe that 2/3rds of House Democrats voted to release a report condemning a Democratic President with confidential information included? There was no confidential information in the Starr report. Back then, these reports were written with the expectation they would be released to the public. Nadler's concerns were over salacious information and grand jury testimony not because it contained confidential information.

 

(your previous post: "Good grief you are full of crap." ..."This is after confidential information was already redacted.") So you assert that Nadler is a hypocrite, somehow, because, you insist, the Starr Report was redacted; then when shown that you are full of s*** about that, you assert that it doesn't matter: Nadler is a hypocrite because, somehow, (you insist) there was not confidential matter in the Starr report to redact -which has nothing to do with the issue of release to Congress. And I'm the one who's full of crap?

You are also dead wrong concerning Grand Jury material in the Starr Report. It was released both to Congress and the public, over Nadler's "no" vote. . There was Grand Jury material that was released to Congress under Fed. Rule 6(e), and a judicial proceedings exception. Its complicated, but the upshot is that Congress is acting as a quasi judicial body, so it gets an unredacted report, the public maybe not. Nadler lost on that latter issue and the public saw the Grand Jury material, but it is not the issue with respect to Congress getting the unredacted Mueller report. Based upon your prior willing refusal to see the difference, I suspect this is a wasted paragraph. You insist on conflating release to the American public with what Congress is entitled to see in your search for the Great White Hypocrite.

I truly know and care nothing about Nadler, but the phony "HYPOCRISY!" cries are intended to ultimately hide the Mueller Report. But I don't think it will work; most conservatives are not hypocrites. Some of you are.

But the facts matter, and I hope that the Mueller Report is released in full, at least to Congress. This view will probably lose with some D.C. Circuit panels and probably will lose in the current Supreme Court. The parameters of the eventual public release are another question for another day, and have nothing to do with Nadler's current position on release of the Report to Congress - just like happened in 1998. Where's the hypocrisy in that?

 

Here you go UTChE96. An article from 1998 about how the Starr Report was delivered inclusive of Grand Jury materials as a result of a Rule 6(e) motion. Please modify your angry, counter-factual, sputtering rationales accordingly. Goodbye To Grand Jury Secrecy?

 

By the way, my current inclination is that Nadler was right in 1998- Grand Jury testimony should be redacted from public disclosure but not from Congress - and the same is true for the Mueller Report. The public is not a quasi-judicial body. A congressional investigation is, however. Congress can see it, the public can’t. I’m no expert on Rule 6(e) though.

 

After looking into thet issue, I have to agree with towersniper on this. Grand jury evidence can be disclosed incident to a judicial proceeding. When Congress is considering impeachment and removal, it is effectively sitting as a judicial body. That was the precedent we followed in Watergate and with Clinton.

Does that give Congress the right to make it public? No. Will Democrats leak it anyway? Of course they will. However, let's suppose they choose not to leak. People on the Left would freak out if they decide not to impeach without explaining why. People on the Right would freak out if they did the reverse. Both sides would say, "the people deserve an explanation."

Obviously, if they do impeach, it'll all come out in a Senate trial.

 

I mistakenly said it was redacted. I meant there was no classified information contained. I would actually agree that Grand Jury testimony should not be released.

However, you continue to be wrong about Nadler not being a hypocrite (which was really the only point I cared to make). He is about to subpoena the full unredacted Mueller report knowing that the same sensitive will be leaked to the public pretty damn quickly. I am positive he would have opposed a subpoena for the full report if this were a Democratic President being investigated.

P.S. I removed the statement about you being so full of crap. You do know more than I gave you credit.

 

"Will Democrats leak it anyway? Of course they will."
I wish politicians had any sense of ethics. I also wish for rainbows and unicorns.
Just like Dems say they want Trump's tax returns to see if the IRS is doing it's job they will release any privileged part that they think will hurt Trump.