Democratic leadership attempting to circumvent established rules?

[hislegacy]

I don’t claim to be an expert. And I could be mistaken.

From my limited understanding the current rules regarding special counsel’s report goes something like this;

The special counsel gives his report to the attorney general. The attorney general then reviews the report and if there is charges against any individual including the president the attorney General Van turns that report over to Congress.

But the special counsel‘s report in total is never given directly to Congress. The only time it’s given to Congress is when there is chargeable offenses in the report.

So now we have Democratic leader ship morning to circumvent these rules and subpoena special counsel.

Can they legally do that when the established rules are that they cannot have info thatcthe AG doesn’t release to them?

 

[iluvatar5150]

How are they trying to circumvent the rules?

 

[Speedwell]

But the special counsel‘s report in total is never given directly to Congress. The only time it’s given to Congress is when there is chargeable offenses in the report.

Which there are.

 

[wing2000]

But the special counsel‘s report in total is never given directly to Congress. The only time it’s given to Congress is when there is chargeable offenses in the report.

Where do you get that information?

And note, that both parties in the House are fully on board with releasing the Mueller report.

 

[wing2000]

...the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” this notification “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you."

-William P Barr, Attorney General

https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...4dd6-a39a-a3241842594d&utm_term=.0b2bdf09d37a

 

[mark46]

The AG shouldn't and won't give the report to Congress before his review. They will be provided with Barr's initial report today or tomorrow, perhaps even 2 reports, one for Congress, and one for those with proper clearances.

In the past, the reports were indeed ultimately given to Congress in their entirety. However, this shouldn't and won't happen this time since there need to be redactions because of existing cases.

Personally, I think that Mueller and Rosenstein were likely to be very careful with their report, understanding that the report would ultimately be released to the Congress.

The release of reports is NOT the issue. The issue is how much of the underlying testimony, argumentation, and documents will be released, especially regarding actions by the president. It is this information that COULD inform the inquiries into Trump's actions, and possible impeachment proceedings. For example, if there is clear abuse of power and obstruction, Congress will need the supporting information. After all, those charges are what impeachment is about.

I don’t claim to be an expert. And I could be mistaken.

From my limited understanding the current rules regarding special counsel’s report goes something like this;

The special counsel gives his report to the attorney general. The attorney general then reviews the report and if there is charges against any individual including the president the attorney General Van turns that report over to Congress.

But the special counsel‘s report in total is never given directly to Congress. The only time it’s given to Congress is when there is chargeable offenses in the report.

So now we have Democratic leader ship morning to circumvent these rules and subpoena special counsel.

Can they legally do that when the established rules are that they cannot have info thatcthe AG doesn’t release to them?

 

[Hank77]

...the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” this notification “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you."

-William P Barr, Attorney General

https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...4dd6-a39a-a3241842594d&utm_term=.0b2bdf09d37a

28 CFR § 600.9 - Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

I believe that the AG is saying the pursuit to this law he sending notification, by letter, to the Congress that the Mueller investigation is completed and that he will release the same letter to the public after the Congress has received it.

 

[hislegacy]

Which there are.

What are they? Because it is widely reported that Mueller is not issuing any further indictments.

 

[hislegacy]

The issue is how much of the underlying testimony, argumentation, and documents will be released, especially regarding actions by the president. It is this information that COULD inform the inquiries into Trump's actions, and possible impeachment proceedings.

If Mueller found sustainable evidence for obstruction, would that not be mentioned in the report, and would not the AG share that with congress for action? Mueller and his team spent two years and north of 25,000,000 investigating collusion, obstruction and a wide range of other issues. If the report does not find support for obstruction, why would the underlying testimony change that?

 

[Speedwell]

What are they? Because it is widely reported that Mueller is not issuing any further indictments.

But he has already issued quite a few, as will be listed in the report. What's your point?

 

[wing2000]

28 CFR § 600.9 - Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

I believe that the AG is saying the pursuit to this law he sending notification, by letter, to the Congress that the Mueller investigation is completed and that he will release the same letter to the public after the Congress has received it.

Agreed.

There is no reference to release of the actual report (to Congress or the Public).

I have asked the Op to explain why he thinks doing so (without bringing charges) would break existing procedure and/or regulation.

 

[Hank77]

I have asked the Op to explain why he thinks doing so (without bringing charges) would break existing procedure and/or regulation

I saw that. I like an answer to that myself. I've not heard that said before.

 

[hislegacy]

But he has already issued quite a few, as will be listed in the report. What's your point?

My point being that there is nothing notes as yet connecting the President to collusion nor obstruction.

My point being Mueller doesn’t seem to be recommending any indictments. If he doesn’t think there is evidence for indictment then common sense would say there isn’t proof to make a charge.

 

[hislegacy]

Where do you get that information?

And note, that both parties in the House are fully on board with releasing the Mueller report.

Re read the OP, I openly stated I had limited knowledge of it.

The knowledge I have is from memory, that is why I am talking about it.

You know, to get opinion, ask questions. Aka learn.

 

[hislegacy]

I saw that. I like an answer to that myself. I've not heard that said before.

Just gave it.

 

[mark46]

I'm not at all sure that Mueller will mention anything that didn't lead to an indictment, except in very brief statements.

That would be the norm for the DOJ.

Of course, this is a very special situation, and therefore we don't know what Mueller has included. Of course, Barr may use the same rule when reporting to Congress.

If Mueller found sustainable evidence for obstruction, would that not be mentioned in the report, and would not the AG share that with congress for action? Mueller and his team spent two years and north of 25,000,000 investigating collusion, obstruction and a wide range of other issues. If the report does not find support for obstruction, why would the underlying testimony change that?

 

[hislegacy]

From here:

The Attorney General’s regulations provide for reports from a special counsel to the Attorney General, and for reports from the Attorney General to Congress. For the former, there are to be annual (section 600.8(a)(2)) and closing (section 600.8(c)) reports by special counsel to the Attorney General. For the latter, there are to be reports from the Attorney General to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (section 600.9) on appointment of special counsel, on the removal of special counsel, and on the conclusion of a special counsel’s investigation.
​

The Special Counsel's direct report is the Attorney General (that is who he works for), The Attorney General then reviews the report as the chief law enforcement officer in the nation. The Attorney General then shares relevant information and charges to be filed with Congress.

But.......

in this case, it seems that members of congress do not trust the Attorney General and want to circumvent around him by going directly to the Special Counsel.

I know there is a lot of emotion associated here - but that is exactly what they are doing.

Example:

Six Democratic committee chairmen wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Friday that if Mueller has any reason to believe that Trump "has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct," then the Justice Department should not conceal it.
​

How much more insulting can they get - they honestly feel the need to remind the Attorney General how to do the job he swore an oath to do?

 

[Pommer]

My point being that there is nothing notes as yet connecting the President to collusion nor obstruction.

Well, that’s always a “good thing”, right?

 

[Hank77]

How much more insulting can they get - they honestly feel the need to remind the Attorney General how to do the job he swore an oath to do?

Do Republicans believe that Loretta Lynn, who took the same oath, has been open and honest about the Clinton 'matter'? Did they investigate and hold hearings about it?

Barr has openly made statements that has lead some people to believe that he believes, that he doesn't need to be transparent with the Congress and has espoused what they see as a view of 'unfettered executive power.'

 

[hislegacy]

Do Republicans believe that Loretta Lynn, who took the same oath, has been open and honest about the Clinton 'matter'? Did they investigate and hold hearings about it?

Barr has openly made statements that has lead some people to believe that he believes, that he doesn't need to be transparent with the Congress and has espoused what they see as a view of 'unfettered executive power.'

I grow tired of whatabputisms given in reply to a question.


For that reason I will not give a rebuttal.