Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 10836
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by 1989TransAm » Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:08 pm

This is what I have been saying all along.

"In disclosing the Mueller report, Attorney General William P. Barr will have to redact grand-jury information. That is the upshot of the ruling today by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
I flagged this case, now called McKeever v. Barr (formerly McKeever v. Sessions), last week. It did not arise out of the Mueller investigation, but it obviously has significant ramifications for the Mueller report — in particular, how much of it we will get to see.
At issue was this question: Does a federal court have the authority to order disclosure of grand-jury materials if the judge decides that the interests of justice warrant doing so; or is the judge limited to the exceptions to grand-jury secrecy that are spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever ruling holds that the text of Rule 6(e) controls. Consequently, judges have no authority to authorize disclosure outside the rule.
This is significant for the Mueller report because Rule 6(e) does not contain an exception to secrecy that would permit disclosure to Congress.
The case involves a writer, Stuart McKeever, who was researching a book on the disappearance of Columbia University professor Jesús de Galíndez Suárez in 1956. It was suspected that Galíndez, a very public critic of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo, was kidnapped and flown to the D.R., where he was murdered. In the course of a federal investigation, suspicion fell on John Joseph Frank, a former FBI agent and CIA lawyer, who later worked for Trujillo. Frank was eventually prosecuted for failing to register as a foreign agent but never charged with any involvement in Galíndez’s murder.
In 2013, for purposes of his research, McKeever petitioned the court for release of records of the grand-jury proceedings that led to Frank’s 1957 indictment. There is nothing in Rule 6(e) that would permit the veil of grand-jury secrecy to be pierced for an academic or literary research project. Yet the district judge asserted that federal courts have “inherent supervisory power” to disclose grand-jury materials, including those that are “historically significant.” Ultimately, however, the judge denied the petition, reasoning that it was “overbroad.”
McKeever appealed. In opposition, the Justice Department argued not only that he should be denied the grand-jury records, but also that the lower court had been wrong to claim authority to disclose the materials outside the strictures of Rule 6(e). The three-judge panel agreed with the Justice Department, in an opinion written by Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg (now a senior judge, appointed by President Reagan) and joined by Judge Gregory Katsas (appointed by President Trump). Judge Sri Srinivasan (appointed by President Obama) dissented.
The majority explained that the Supreme Court has long recognized the vital purposes served by grand-jury secrecy, and thus that secrecy must be protected unless there is some clear contrary indication in a statute or rule. Disclosure is the exception, not the rule.
In Rule 6(e), Congress has prescribed grand-jury secrecy and its exceptions. Those who contend that a court may permit disclosure outside the rule argue that judges had such authority before the rule was enacted. The panel majority, however, emphasized the rule’s sweeping language: Officials must refrain from disclosure “unless these rules provide otherwise.” The rule also takes pains to spell out the situations in which a judge may authorize disclosure. Plainly, the intent of the rule was to limit disclosure; were an unwritten judicial power to ignore the limitations recognized, the rule would be pointless.
The exceptions enumerated in the rule permit judges to authorize disclosure, to federal and certain non-federal officials, in order to aid in the enforcement of criminal laws. Clearly, it would be easy to conjure other worthy exceptions. Nevertheless, the panel majority observed, the Supreme Court has stressed that “not every beneficial purpose, or even every valid governmental purpose, is an appropriate reason for breaching grand jury secrecy.”
The panel rejected the claim that the D.C. Circuit’s decision in a Watergate era case, Haldeman v. Sirica (1974), permits disclosure outside the rule. This is salient for purposes of the Mueller report because Haldeman involved an order by the district court (Judge John Sirica) permitting transmission of a sealed grand-jury report to the House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering possible grounds to impeach President Nixon.
In his dissent, Judge Srinivasan maintained that Haldeman should control. Judges Ginsburg and Katsas disagreed, relating that the lower and appellate courts in Haldeman failed to conduct any “meaningful analysis of Rule 6(e)’s terms”; they merely offered policy arguments in favor of disclosure — with Sirica, for example, suggesting that disclosure to the House of Representatives was analogous to disclosure to another grand jury (the rule allows the latter). Moreover, Haldeman was distinguishable, the majority reasoned, because the disclosure of the grand-jury report was technically done within the context of the criminal case against H. R. Haldeman and his co-defendant, Gordon Strachan; that is, it was not a direct transmission to the House.

(For what it’s worth, I believe Haldeman is distinguishable for an additional reason: The grand jury in that case was operating under a statute that permitted it to file a report, as distinguished from an indictment, which the grand jury itself recommended be transmitted to the House. I described such reports nearly two years ago, when we first learned that Mueller had convened a grand jury; and Kim Strassel had an excellent Twitter thread about them earlier this week, specifically addressing Haldeman. Such grand-jury reports are very different from what is at issue in the Mueller report. The latter is a prosecutor’s report based, in part, on grand-jury evidence; there are no grand-jury findings or recommendations that its proceedings be transmitted to Congress; and Democrats are asking for all the grand-jury information, with no view expressed by the grand jury or the witnesses who would be affected. The panel majority, however, did not address these differences — no doubt because the Mueller report was not under consideration in the McKeever case.)
It is foreseeable that McKeever could be further appealed, to the full D.C. Circuit (an en banc review) and to the Supreme Court. Not only was the panel divided, but there is a split in the circuits — which the panel majority acknowledges, discussing the relevant cases at the conclusion of its opinion. For now, however, McKeever is the law in the D.C. Circuit, where the Mueller investigation took place. Naturally, the Justice Department must follow it — and it is, again, an affirmation of the Justice Department’s position on the law.
This means Attorney General Barr must redact grand-jury material from the Mueller report before disclosing it."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... formation/

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5106
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by Firedome8 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:23 am

This past weekend, some conservatives cheered when Attorney General William Barr said the Mueller report showed insufficient evidence that the Donald Trump campaign had conspired with Russia -- even though they had spent several months calling the investigation a witch hunt and hoax and arguing that Robert Mueller and the other investigators couldn't be trusted.

Thought Mullier was a liar. So then, is he lieing now?

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5106
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by Firedome8 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:24 am

Double post

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by Ken0069 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:12 am

Humm, National Review??? Here's a list of the authors listed on the National Review website that contains a BUNCH of #NEVERTRUMPERS!!

https://www.nationalreview.com/authors/

I'm surprised to see ANYTHING positive on President Trump come from that outfit! It's a #NEVERTRUMPER/Deep State paradise! :roll:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by 86_regal » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:57 am

1989TransAm wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:08 pm
This is what I have been saying all along.

"In disclosing the Mueller report, Attorney General William P. Barr will have to redact grand-jury information. That is the upshot of the ruling today by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
I flagged this case, now called McKeever v. Barr (formerly McKeever v. Sessions), last week. It did not arise out of the Mueller investigation, but it obviously has significant ramifications for the Mueller report — in particular, how much of it we will get to see.
At issue was this question: Does a federal court have the authority to order disclosure of grand-jury materials if the judge decides that the interests of justice warrant doing so; or is the judge limited to the exceptions to grand-jury secrecy that are spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever ruling holds that the text of Rule 6(e) controls. Consequently, judges have no authority to authorize disclosure outside the rule.
This is significant for the Mueller report because Rule 6(e) does not contain an exception to secrecy that would permit disclosure to Congress.
The case involves a writer, Stuart McKeever, who was researching a book on the disappearance of Columbia University professor Jesús de Galíndez Suárez in 1956. It was suspected that Galíndez, a very public critic of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo, was kidnapped and flown to the D.R., where he was murdered. In the course of a federal investigation, suspicion fell on John Joseph Frank, a former FBI agent and CIA lawyer, who later worked for Trujillo. Frank was eventually prosecuted for failing to register as a foreign agent but never charged with any involvement in Galíndez’s murder.
In 2013, for purposes of his research, McKeever petitioned the court for release of records of the grand-jury proceedings that led to Frank’s 1957 indictment. There is nothing in Rule 6(e) that would permit the veil of grand-jury secrecy to be pierced for an academic or literary research project. Yet the district judge asserted that federal courts have “inherent supervisory power” to disclose grand-jury materials, including those that are “historically significant.” Ultimately, however, the judge denied the petition, reasoning that it was “overbroad.”
McKeever appealed. In opposition, the Justice Department argued not only that he should be denied the grand-jury records, but also that the lower court had been wrong to claim authority to disclose the materials outside the strictures of Rule 6(e). The three-judge panel agreed with the Justice Department, in an opinion written by Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg (now a senior judge, appointed by President Reagan) and joined by Judge Gregory Katsas (appointed by President Trump). Judge Sri Srinivasan (appointed by President Obama) dissented.
The majority explained that the Supreme Court has long recognized the vital purposes served by grand-jury secrecy, and thus that secrecy must be protected unless there is some clear contrary indication in a statute or rule. Disclosure is the exception, not the rule.
In Rule 6(e), Congress has prescribed grand-jury secrecy and its exceptions. Those who contend that a court may permit disclosure outside the rule argue that judges had such authority before the rule was enacted. The panel majority, however, emphasized the rule’s sweeping language: Officials must refrain from disclosure “unless these rules provide otherwise.” The rule also takes pains to spell out the situations in which a judge may authorize disclosure. Plainly, the intent of the rule was to limit disclosure; were an unwritten judicial power to ignore the limitations recognized, the rule would be pointless.
The exceptions enumerated in the rule permit judges to authorize disclosure, to federal and certain non-federal officials, in order to aid in the enforcement of criminal laws. Clearly, it would be easy to conjure other worthy exceptions. Nevertheless, the panel majority observed, the Supreme Court has stressed that “not every beneficial purpose, or even every valid governmental purpose, is an appropriate reason for breaching grand jury secrecy.”
The panel rejected the claim that the D.C. Circuit’s decision in a Watergate era case, Haldeman v. Sirica (1974), permits disclosure outside the rule. This is salient for purposes of the Mueller report because Haldeman involved an order by the district court (Judge John Sirica) permitting transmission of a sealed grand-jury report to the House Judiciary Committee, which was then considering possible grounds to impeach President Nixon.
In his dissent, Judge Srinivasan maintained that Haldeman should control. Judges Ginsburg and Katsas disagreed, relating that the lower and appellate courts in Haldeman failed to conduct any “meaningful analysis of Rule 6(e)’s terms”; they merely offered policy arguments in favor of disclosure — with Sirica, for example, suggesting that disclosure to the House of Representatives was analogous to disclosure to another grand jury (the rule allows the latter). Moreover, Haldeman was distinguishable, the majority reasoned, because the disclosure of the grand-jury report was technically done within the context of the criminal case against H. R. Haldeman and his co-defendant, Gordon Strachan; that is, it was not a direct transmission to the House.

(For what it’s worth, I believe Haldeman is distinguishable for an additional reason: The grand jury in that case was operating under a statute that permitted it to file a report, as distinguished from an indictment, which the grand jury itself recommended be transmitted to the House. I described such reports nearly two years ago, when we first learned that Mueller had convened a grand jury; and Kim Strassel had an excellent Twitter thread about them earlier this week, specifically addressing Haldeman. Such grand-jury reports are very different from what is at issue in the Mueller report. The latter is a prosecutor’s report based, in part, on grand-jury evidence; there are no grand-jury findings or recommendations that its proceedings be transmitted to Congress; and Democrats are asking for all the grand-jury information, with no view expressed by the grand jury or the witnesses who would be affected. The panel majority, however, did not address these differences — no doubt because the Mueller report was not under consideration in the McKeever case.)
It is foreseeable that McKeever could be further appealed, to the full D.C. Circuit (an en banc review) and to the Supreme Court. Not only was the panel divided, but there is a split in the circuits — which the panel majority acknowledges, discussing the relevant cases at the conclusion of its opinion. For now, however, McKeever is the law in the D.C. Circuit, where the Mueller investigation took place. Naturally, the Justice Department must follow it — and it is, again, an affirmation of the Justice Department’s position on the law.
This means Attorney General Barr must redact grand-jury material from the Mueller report before disclosing it."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... formation/
Do you now feel vindicated???

I'm getting sick and tired of so many that grant unquestioning deference to judicial stuffed shirts like Barr, either when they rule in their political favor or simply because of his/her administrative title. Particularly when their "opinion" and subsequent ruling is in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION to Constitutional prescription!!!
Anyone with a literacy of the English language and an IQ above 80 KNOWS that EVERY one of our country's administrative representatives ARE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY in the course of those duties!
IMO, Anyone on the other side of this argument is a hack...

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by GRTfast » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:40 pm

86_regal wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:57 am

Do you now feel vindicated???

I'm getting sick and tired of so many that grant unquestioning deference to judicial stuffed shirts like Barr, either when they rule in their political favor or simply because of his/her administrative title. Particularly when their "opinion" and subsequent ruling is in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION to Constitutional prescription!!!
Anyone with a literacy of the English language and an IQ above 80 KNOWS that EVERY one of our country's administrative representatives ARE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY in the course of those duties!
IMO, Anyone on the other side of this argument is a hack...
What you’re seeing with guys like TA and the other sycophants here is party over country, pure and simple. Party over everything actually. Trump and his cronies have them on puppet strings, and they happily play right along with the dance, right and wrong he damned.

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5106
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by Firedome8 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:22 pm

X

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 10836
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by 1989TransAm » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:23 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:40 pm
86_regal wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:57 am

Do you now feel vindicated???

I'm getting sick and tired of so many that grant unquestioning deference to judicial stuffed shirts like Barr, either when they rule in their political favor or simply because of his/her administrative title. Particularly when their "opinion" and subsequent ruling is in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION to Constitutional prescription!!!
Anyone with a literacy of the English language and an IQ above 80 KNOWS that EVERY one of our country's administrative representatives ARE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY in the course of those duties!
IMO, Anyone on the other side of this argument is a hack...
What you’re seeing with guys like TA and the other sycophants here is party over country, pure and simple. Party over everything actually. Trump and his cronies have them on puppet strings, and they happily play right along with the dance, right and wrong he damned.
Coming from the person that dances to the strings of the msm. #-o [-X In case you have not noticed President Trump is putting America first. :D

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by j-c-c » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:27 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:23 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:40 pm
86_regal wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:57 am

Do you now feel vindicated???

I'm getting sick and tired of so many that grant unquestioning deference to judicial stuffed shirts like Barr, either when they rule in their political favor or simply because of his/her administrative title. Particularly when their "opinion" and subsequent ruling is in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION to Constitutional prescription!!!
Anyone with a literacy of the English language and an IQ above 80 KNOWS that EVERY one of our country's administrative representatives ARE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY in the course of those duties!
IMO, Anyone on the other side of this argument is a hack...
What you’re seeing with guys like TA and the other sycophants here is party over country, pure and simple. Party over everything actually. Trump and his cronies have them on puppet strings, and they happily play right along with the dance, right and wrong he damned.
Coming from the person that dances to the strings of the msm. #-o [-X In case you have not noticed President Trump is putting America first. :D
Only a conned person would believe DT is putting America before DT.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by GRTfast » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:40 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:23 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:40 pm
86_regal wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:57 am

Do you now feel vindicated???

I'm getting sick and tired of so many that grant unquestioning deference to judicial stuffed shirts like Barr, either when they rule in their political favor or simply because of his/her administrative title. Particularly when their "opinion" and subsequent ruling is in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION to Constitutional prescription!!!
Anyone with a literacy of the English language and an IQ above 80 KNOWS that EVERY one of our country's administrative representatives ARE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY in the course of those duties!
IMO, Anyone on the other side of this argument is a hack...
What you’re seeing with guys like TA and the other sycophants here is party over country, pure and simple. Party over everything actually. Trump and his cronies have them on puppet strings, and they happily play right along with the dance, right and wrong he damned.
Coming from the person that dances to the strings of the msm. #-o [-X In case you have not noticed President Trump is putting America first. :D
Well, why don’t you go ahead and put together a list of TA approved media sources. I’m running low on toilet paper at the moment, I can use your list to wipe my ass with. :)

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 10836
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by 1989TransAm » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:48 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:27 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:23 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:40 pm


What you’re seeing with guys like TA and the other sycophants here is party over country, pure and simple. Party over everything actually. Trump and his cronies have them on puppet strings, and they happily play right along with the dance, right and wrong he damned.
Coming from the person that dances to the strings of the msm. #-o [-X In case you have not noticed President Trump is putting America first. :D
Only a conned person would believe DT is putting America before DT.
Only one ignorant of what is going on in this country would think otherwise.

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 10836
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by 1989TransAm » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:49 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:40 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:23 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:40 pm


What you’re seeing with guys like TA and the other sycophants here is party over country, pure and simple. Party over everything actually. Trump and his cronies have them on puppet strings, and they happily play right along with the dance, right and wrong he damned.
Coming from the person that dances to the strings of the msm. #-o [-X In case you have not noticed President Trump is putting America first. :D
Well, why don’t you go ahead and put together a list of TA approved media sources. I’m running low on toilet paper at the moment, I can use your list to wipe my ass with. :)
You should be doing fine on your toilet paper supply. The vast majority of the msm is suitable for toilet paper.

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by 86_regal » Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:31 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:40 pm
86_regal wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:57 am

Do you now feel vindicated???

I'm getting sick and tired of so many that grant unquestioning deference to judicial stuffed shirts like Barr, either when they rule in their political favor or simply because of his/her administrative title. Particularly when their "opinion" and subsequent ruling is in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION to Constitutional prescription!!!
Anyone with a literacy of the English language and an IQ above 80 KNOWS that EVERY one of our country's administrative representatives ARE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY in the course of those duties!
IMO, Anyone on the other side of this argument is a hack...
What you’re seeing with guys like TA and the other sycophants here is party over country, pure and simple. Party over everything actually. Trump and his cronies have them on puppet strings, and they happily play right along with the dance, right and wrong he damned.
Exactly; hence my last statement in the previous comment.

In fairness, it DOES cut both ways. IOWs, those SAME standards should apply to ALL, that is in fact what makes a standard a STANDARD.
I'm not directing this toward you or anyone else specifically on this board. HOWEVER, their were plenty of those on D side of aisle defending Obama by completely discrediting the nutjobs known as the "birthers" soon after he was elected, going so far as to support NOT REQUIRING to present the BC evidence.
Why didn't the Obama Admin (or ANYONE not support) IMMEDIATELY dispelling the myth with a copy of his BC?
Whether the birthers' accusations were completely unfounded or not, it IS a requirement of the Constitution to born in the states OR abroad by A parent who is natural born citizen.
Amongst other "shady dealings" under the SAME administration?

IMO, in lieu of the propagation of the "Dems vs GOP" paradigm IS EXACTLY (one of) the reasons why we have a LARGER and LESS TRANSPARENT government...

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by j-c-c » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:34 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:48 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:27 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:23 pm


Coming from the person that dances to the strings of the msm. #-o [-X In case you have not noticed President Trump is putting America first. :D
Only a conned person would believe DT is putting America before DT.
Only one ignorant of what is going on in this country would think otherwise.

The Zen master said, "we'll see"

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 10836
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

Post by 1989TransAm » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:36 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:34 pm
1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:48 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:27 pm


Only a conned person would believe DT is putting America before DT.
Only one ignorant of what is going on in this country would think otherwise.

The Zen master said, "we'll see"
Just like the Mueller report. :D

Post Reply