Why isn't the Mueller report being released completely and unredacted? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan a US president censor a special counsel reportWhy didn't Mueller have to submit a report to Congress?Why did US armed forces retreat from the Philippines completely?Why would Mueller notify the White House that he wants to interview Spicer and Priebus?Why is Mueller not focusing on the 2016 Election?What is known about the Mueller investigation in December of 2017?Did the US request that Russia extradite the 13 Russians charged by Mueller?Is Fox News correct that Mueller shouldn't be going after a campaign finance violation?Is there any provision for Non-Disclosure for Congressmen demanding temporary documents of an ongoing investigation?Has there been any EU reaction to Trump's threat to put a 25% tariff on all EU cars?How does the Mueller investigation compare with former investigations in terms of length of time, money spent, and indictments?Was the Walsh special counsel report (on the Iran Contra) released completely uncensored?
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
Differentiate between line ending within polygon and line passing all the way through polygon - QGIS
Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?
Can the Protection from Evil and Good spell be used on the caster?
Rank groups within a grouped sequence of TRUE/FALSE and NA
What tool would a Roman-age civilization have to grind silver and other metals into dust?
How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
Manuscript was "unsubmitted" because the manuscript was deposited in Arxiv Preprints
Does duplicating a spell with Wish count as casting that spell?
Find number from a line and get the quotient
changing state of an LED using a pushbutton leads to unstable simulation on SimulIDE
If the Wish spell is used to duplicate the effect of Simulacrum, are existing duplicates destroyed?
What is the purpose of the constant in the probability density function
Spanish for "widget"
Operational amplifier basics
Understanding the implication of what "well-defined" means for the operation in quotient group
Is there a general name for the setup in which payoffs are not known exactly but players try to influence each other's perception of the payoffs?
Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?
Protecting Dualbooting Windows from dangerous code (like rm -rf)
Do characters know how to read/write languages or just speak them?
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
Should I use my personal e-mail address, or my workplace one, when registering to external websites for work purposes?
How was Skylab's orbit inclination chosen?
Why isn't the Mueller report being released completely and unredacted?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan a US president censor a special counsel reportWhy didn't Mueller have to submit a report to Congress?Why did US armed forces retreat from the Philippines completely?Why would Mueller notify the White House that he wants to interview Spicer and Priebus?Why is Mueller not focusing on the 2016 Election?What is known about the Mueller investigation in December of 2017?Did the US request that Russia extradite the 13 Russians charged by Mueller?Is Fox News correct that Mueller shouldn't be going after a campaign finance violation?Is there any provision for Non-Disclosure for Congressmen demanding temporary documents of an ongoing investigation?Has there been any EU reaction to Trump's threat to put a 25% tariff on all EU cars?How does the Mueller investigation compare with former investigations in terms of length of time, money spent, and indictments?Was the Walsh special counsel report (on the Iran Contra) released completely uncensored?
I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.
While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.
Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.
However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?
united-states donald-trump mueller-investigation
add a comment |
I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.
While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.
Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.
However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?
united-states donald-trump mueller-investigation
Related
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56
add a comment |
I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.
While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.
Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.
However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?
united-states donald-trump mueller-investigation
I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.
While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.
Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.
However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?
united-states donald-trump mueller-investigation
united-states donald-trump mueller-investigation
edited Mar 31 at 4:12
reirab
4,1841626
4,1841626
asked Mar 30 at 15:03
ParaPara
13213
13213
Related
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56
add a comment |
Related
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56
Related
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56
Related
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.
House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019
The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.
So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.
The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.
"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”
Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.
Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review
3
I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.
– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23
15
Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.
– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32
4
@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.
– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08
1
You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02
2
"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.
– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12
|
show 2 more comments
The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.
Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883
4
This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.
– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28
1
Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36
@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40031%2fwhy-isnt-the-mueller-report-being-released-completely-and-unredacted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.
House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019
The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.
So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.
The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.
"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”
Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.
Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review
3
I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.
– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23
15
Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.
– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32
4
@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.
– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08
1
You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02
2
"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.
– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12
|
show 2 more comments
... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.
House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019
The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.
So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.
The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.
"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”
Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.
Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review
3
I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.
– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23
15
Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.
– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32
4
@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.
– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08
1
You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02
2
"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.
– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12
|
show 2 more comments
... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.
House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019
The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.
So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.
The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.
"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”
Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.
Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review
... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?
The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.
House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019
The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.
So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.
The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.
"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”
Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.
Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review
edited Mar 30 at 22:54
answered Mar 30 at 15:37
Michael_BMichael_B
8,78852432
8,78852432
3
I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.
– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23
15
Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.
– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32
4
@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.
– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08
1
You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02
2
"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.
– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12
|
show 2 more comments
3
I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.
– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23
15
Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.
– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32
4
@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.
– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08
1
You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02
2
"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.
– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12
3
3
I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.
– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23
I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.
– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23
15
15
Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.
– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32
Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.
– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32
4
4
@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.
– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08
@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.
– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08
1
1
You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02
You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02
2
2
"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.
– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12
"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.
– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12
|
show 2 more comments
The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.
Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883
4
This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.
– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28
1
Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36
@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12
add a comment |
The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.
Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883
4
This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.
– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28
1
Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36
@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12
add a comment |
The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.
Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883
The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.
Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883
edited yesterday
answered Mar 30 at 18:01
Matt KallerudMatt Kallerud
393
393
4
This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.
– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28
1
Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36
@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12
add a comment |
4
This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.
– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28
1
Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36
@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12
4
4
This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.
– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28
This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.
– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28
1
1
Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36
Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36
@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12
@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.
– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40031%2fwhy-isnt-the-mueller-report-being-released-completely-and-unredacted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Related
– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56