Jump to content
DennisTheMenace

In 420-0 vote, House says Mueller report should be public

Recommended Posts

Mueller+report.jpg

 

Transparency and good governance is always a good thing. 😱

 

The House voted unanimously Thursday for a resolution calling for any final report in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation to be made public, a symbolic action designed to pressure Attorney General William Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the probe is concluded.

 

The Democratic-backed resolution, which passed 420-0, comes as Mueller is nearing an end to his investigation. Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side.

 

Four Republicans voted present: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

 

The nonbinding resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr, with an exception for classified material. The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress.

 

"This resolution is critical because of the many questions and criticisms of the investigation raised by the president and his administration," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. "It is important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency."

 

It's unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia, and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see. Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr, and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly.

 

Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he takes seriously the department regulations that say Mueller's report should be confidential. Those regulations require only that the report explain the decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions, which could be as simple as a bullet point list or as fulsome as a report running hundreds of pages.

 

"I don't know what, at the end of the day, what will be releasable. I don't know what Bob Mueller is writing," Barr said at the hearing.

 

The top Republican on the Judiciary panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, said the vote on the resolution was unnecessary but that he would support it anyway. He said he has no reason to believe that Barr won't follow the regulations.

 

But Democrats have said they are unsatisfied with Barr's answers and want a stronger commitment to releasing the full report, along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence.

 

In introducing the resolution, Nadler and five other Democratic committee chairs said "the public is clearly served by transparency with respect to any investigation that could implicate or exonerate the president and his campaign."

 

Texas Rep. Will Hurd, a GOP member of the House intelligence committee, said before the vote that he believes the resolution should have been even broader to include the release of underlying evidence.

 

"I want the American people to know as much as they can and see as much as they can," said Hurd, a former CIA officer. He added that "full transparency is the only way to prevent future innuendo."

 

If a full report isn't released, House Democrats have made it clear they will do whatever they can to get hold of it. Nadler has said he would subpoena the final report and invite — or even subpoena — Mueller to talk about it.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been less eager to push Barr on the release of the report, despite some in his caucus who have said they want to ensure transparency.

 

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa introduced legislation with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut that would require Mueller to submit a detailed report to lawmakers and the public at the end of the investigation. But both McConnell and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, have declined to say whether they would support the legislation.

 

Graham said he agrees "with the concept of transparency," but stopped short of supporting Grassley's bill, saying he disagrees with taking discretion away from the attorney general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open up the clown car and discover the Russians were working w/ the DemocRats.

 

 

 

 

kj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are actual laws regarding this issue....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KneeJerk said:

Open up the clown car and discover the Russians were working w/ the DemocRats.

 

 

kj

The Democrats wouldn't have put orange Hitler in the White House.  Get a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DennisTheMenace said:

Mueller+report.jpg

 

Transparency and good governance is always a good thing. 😱

 

The House voted unanimously Thursday for a resolution calling for any final report in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation to be made public, a symbolic action designed to pressure Attorney General William Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the probe is concluded.

 

The Democratic-backed resolution, which passed 420-0, comes as Mueller is nearing an end to his investigation. Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side.

 

Four Republicans voted present: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

 

The nonbinding resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr, with an exception for classified material. The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress.

 

"This resolution is critical because of the many questions and criticisms of the investigation raised by the president and his administration," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. "It is important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency."

 

It's unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia, and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see. Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr, and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly.

 

Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he takes seriously the department regulations that say Mueller's report should be confidential. Those regulations require only that the report explain the decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions, which could be as simple as a bullet point list or as fulsome as a report running hundreds of pages.

 

"I don't know what, at the end of the day, what will be releasable. I don't know what Bob Mueller is writing," Barr said at the hearing.

 

The top Republican on the Judiciary panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, said the vote on the resolution was unnecessary but that he would support it anyway. He said he has no reason to believe that Barr won't follow the regulations.

 

But Democrats have said they are unsatisfied with Barr's answers and want a stronger commitment to releasing the full report, along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence.

 

In introducing the resolution, Nadler and five other Democratic committee chairs said "the public is clearly served by transparency with respect to any investigation that could implicate or exonerate the president and his campaign."

 

Texas Rep. Will Hurd, a GOP member of the House intelligence committee, said before the vote that he believes the resolution should have been even broader to include the release of underlying evidence.

 

"I want the American people to know as much as they can and see as much as they can," said Hurd, a former CIA officer. He added that "full transparency is the only way to prevent future innuendo."

 

If a full report isn't released, House Democrats have made it clear they will do whatever they can to get hold of it. Nadler has said he would subpoena the final report and invite — or even subpoena — Mueller to talk about it.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been less eager to push Barr on the release of the report, despite some in his caucus who have said they want to ensure transparency.

 

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa introduced legislation with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut that would require Mueller to submit a detailed report to lawmakers and the public at the end of the investigation. But both McConnell and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, have declined to say whether they would support the legislation.

 

Graham said he agrees "with the concept of transparency," but stopped short of supporting Grassley's bill, saying he disagrees with taking discretion away from the attorney general.

You know what's fu cking  hilarious ...

How the Dems and the establishment  are continually pushing for transparency but ignore the rather large pink elephant standing in the DNC headquarters which they are trying to sweep under the rug.

The scandal that created this in the first place...

And until we get answers democracy is dead in this country....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

420-0. They must be smoking something. They have no right to the report. Trump should hold it back just in spite of this toothless resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

The Democrats wouldn't have put orange Hitler in the White House.  Get a clue.

Comparing Trump to Hitler...?

 

You should get a clue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Z09 said:

Comparing Trump to Hitler...?

 

You should get a clue

For a fascist dictator he doesn't seem to be doing much fascism or dictating. Most hands off president, in terms of using executive authority, we have seen in decades. I think the liberals have been using too much playdough to cope with Hillary's loss and the fumes are getting to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

The Democrats wouldn't have put orange Hitler in the White House.  Get a clue.

 

^^ anti semite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

For a fascist dictator he doesn't seem to be doing much fascism or dictating. Most hands off president, in terms of using executive authority, we have seen in decades. I think the liberals have been using too much playdough to cope with Hillary's loss and the fumes are getting to them. 

When then they bring up this comparison they really show they have no clue about what Hitler did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Z09 said:

When then they bring up this comparison they really show they have no clue about what Hitler did...

For them, no longer threatening school funding if gender confused students delusions are not greeted with total compliance, might be their Kristallnacht. 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

The Democrats wouldn't have put orange Hitler in the White House.  Get a clue.

 

No, we would not have, but YOU did.

 

Asswipe.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

No, we would not have, but YOU did.

 

Asswipe.

 

Bill

^^ how novel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zaro said:

^^ how novel

Great article about "electable" presidential candidates.  Let's see: 

Carter, was he "electable"?  No, he was not.  Won. 

Reagan?  No.  Won. 

Clinton?  No.  Won. 

Dubya?  No.  Won.

Obama?  No.  Won.

 

Gore?  Yes.  Lost. 

Kerry?  Yes.  Lost.

Hillary?  Yes.  Lost.

Beto/Biden?  Yes.  ???

 

The whole notion of trying to push some "lesser of two evils" candidate out there to try to beat Trump is bass ackwards.  The whole notion that people should avoid candidates they like and are charged up by in favor of milquetoast "electable" cardboard cutouts is laughable.  But that's what some folks are still pushing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, splunch said:

Great article about "electable" presidential candidates.  Let's see: 

Carter, was he "electable"?  No, he was not.  Won. 

Reagan?  No.  Won. 

Clinton?  No.  Won. 

Dubya?  No.  Won.

Obama?  No.  Won.

 

Gore?  Yes.  Lost. 

Kerry?  Yes.  Lost.

Hillary?  Yes.  Lost.

Beto/Biden?  Yes.  ???

 

The whole notion of trying to push some "lesser of two evils" candidate out there to try to beat Trump is bass ackwards.  The whole notion that people should avoid candidates they like and are charged up by in favor of milquetoast "electable" cardboard cutouts is laughable.  But that's what some folks are still pushing.  

Bill is not well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Four Republicans voted present: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie"

 

 

 

LMAO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

No, we would not have, but YOU did.

 

Asswipe.

 

Bill

Incorrect.  I opposed Trump the entire way, you obsessed douchebag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Incorrect.  I opposed Trump the entire way, you obsessed douchebag.

 

YOU opposed him by not voting? LOL.

 

YOU are an enabler.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whitemajikman said:

You know what's fu cking  hilarious ...

How the Dems and the establishment  are continually pushing for transparency but ignore the rather large pink elephant standing in the DNC headquarters which they are trying to sweep under the rug.

The scandal that created this in the first place...

And until we get answers democracy is dead in this country....

 

 

Russian agent checks in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

YOU opposed him by not voting? LOL.

 

YOU are an enabler.

 

Bill

You know the answer to that, moron.  I don't vote for corrupt sociopaths OR corporate whores.  There was no good candidate.  Hell, there wasn't even a decent candidate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
Just now, RollingRock said:

You know the answer to that, moron.  I don't vote for corrupt sociopaths OR corporate whores.  There was no good candidate.  Hell, there wasn't even a decent candidate.

 

Not true. YOU are a complete fool.

 

Did you see the CNN report of Sanders' calls to nationalize the economy that show up your lies? LOL.

 

I'm sure YOU will lie, excuse, and evade.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, shut the fuck up.  I don't care what Bernie said 40-50 years ago.  I care what his opinions are NOW.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Oh, shut the Bad word up.  I don't care what Bernie said 40-50 years ago.  I care what his opinions are NOW.  

Unchanged. More progressives are joining him in the socialist clown car. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Unchanged. More progressives are joining him in the socialist clown car. 

that's incorrect....but you knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×