Judge cites Barr’s ‘misleading’ statements in ordering review of Mueller report redactions

[Speedy]

Another judge (Bush appointee) about to be slapped down by the SCOTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...story.html

“A federal judge in Washington sharply criticized Attorney General William P. Barr on Thursday for a “lack of candor,” questioning the truthfulness of the nation’s top law enforcement official in his handling of last year’s report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, overseeing a lawsuit brought by EPIC, a watchdog group, and BuzzFeed News, said he saw serious discrepancies between Barr’s public statements about Mueller’s findings and the public, partially redacted version of that report detailing the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Read Judge Reggie B. Walton’s opinion on the Justice Department’s handling of the Mueller report

Because of those discrepancies, Walton ruled, the judge would conduct an independent review of Mueller’s full report to see whether the Justice Department’s redactions were appropriate.”

[wave rider]

It’s about time!

[RgrF]

He essentially labeled the Attorney General of the United States a propagandizing liar. Not that it will make any difference in the long run. Barr and his boss lack character and they revel in that fact and that their supporters don't care about that sort of nonsense.

[bfd]

This time the order may have some teeth in it, however. These are the kinds of orders that will keep the Trumpies up in arms - and essentially mute them - while adding fuel to the growing state of discontent among "undecideds"… conceivably keeping them interested through the next few months.

Barring complete shutdown of the Justice Department, what needs to happen now is that some of those redactions find their way into a reporter's hands where they can be dissected for veracity… We already know there's none of that among Dumbf and his ilk.

[rjmacs]

What happens when Barr refuses to provide the documents, claiming that his decision is not reviewable by the courts?

[hal]

rjmacs wrote:
What happens when Barr refuses to provide the documents, claiming that his decision is not reviewable by the courts?

the only thing we know for sure is that lawyers will make money

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
What happens when Barr refuses to provide the documents, claiming that his decision is not reviewable by the courts?

I think what the courts should do in that case is use legal precedent in rulings to determine whether or not such a claim is legally valid. If the judges think that according to precedent that Barr's claim is valid then he doesn't have to provide the documents. If the judges rule that his claim is not legally valid then he should turn over the documents. Of course, Barr should be able to appeal all the way to SCOTUS but he still ought to be bound by whatever decision they render.

That's what I think should happen. What with the Country Club Clan Federalists infesting so much of the legal system, though, who knows what will actually happen.

[rjmacs]

Your use of the word "ought" bothers me most in your post, Ted.

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
Your use of the word "ought" bothers me most in your post, Ted.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure why it does. Is it because the "ought" ought to be an "is" but could very well not be?

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Your use of the word "ought" bothers me most in your post, Ted.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure why it does. Is it because the "ought" ought to be an "is" but could very well not be?
It's not anything about you that bothers me. It's that empirically, Barr seems to take any interrogate any legal or ethical 'should' to see if it contains any 'must.' If not, he ignores it and does as he deems appropriate. That's a uniquely dangerous quality in an attorney general (or any law enforcement officer).