Rosenstein seems to lower hopes for what public will see of Mueller report

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Monday appeared to be trying to dampen expectations about what the public might see of special counsel Robert Mueller's widely-expected report, noting that federal prosecutors typically don't describe conduct that falls outside the scope of criminal charges.

"The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents that I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement was: If we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens," Rosenstein said during a question and answer session at a Washington think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Rosenstein would not answer specific questions about the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference, but he spoke amid a growing expectation that Mueller will deliver a confidential report to the attorney general within the next few weeks — a report that may describe his decisions not to prosecute people he had been investigating.

The rules appear to give Mueller wide latitude to create a narrative explaining what he found about the many unexplained contacts between Trump associates and Russians, regardless of whether he files criminal charges.

But on the question of whether that information ever becomes public, Rosenstein seemed to be pouring cold water.

Rosenstein criticized former FBI Director James Comey for publicly accusing Clinton and her aides in July 2016 of being "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

When it comes to law enforcement investigations, transparency is not always a good thing, Rosenstein said.

"Just because the government collects information, doesn't mean that information is accurate," he said. "It can be really misleading if you're overly transparent about information that the government collects. So I think we do need to be really cautious about that."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rosenstein-seems-to-lower-hopes-for-what-public-will-see-of-mueller-report/ar-BBU4GpR?li=BBnb7Kz

[manor321]

1. More bullshit from Ken Dilanian

Do not read or listen to Ken Dilanian.

And his interpretation here is nonsense.

Seth Abramson:

This is wrong in so many ways. I'll give you the simplest example: say that the case for impeachment against Donald Trump involves the description of bad acts (but not criminal acts) by *people other than Trump*, which it *most certainly does*. How could DOJ withhold *that* info?

Link to tweet

1/ The way we're discussing how to prove a crime/impeachment is farcical. The idea Barr could put Trump above the law by refusing to release any info on him because he can't be indicted as POTUS is insane. The same is true for not releasing supporting info involving other people.

2/ Imagine that Barr agrees, for instance, to send all the investigative info on Trump to Congress for possible impeachment proceedings—but *blacks out all other names* in the same way the Manafort filing blacked out all non-Manafort/non-Gates/non-Kilimnik names. See the problem?