I'm not bashing a democratic figure. I'm just expressing a difference...

[LAS14]

... of opinion. When the Mueller report was first released the mantra of high ranking Dems was that we needed to see everything that was legally allowed. They listed the things that everyone agreed had to be redacted, evidence obtained by a grand jury, and classified information.

In the last couple of days, thought, there have been lots of quotes of Democrats insisting that we see "the whole report." A report this morning had several Dems complaining that Barr, at a meeting with some Dem(s?), refused to commit to releasing "the whole report." It's quite possible that Barr was simply re-iterating that some parts could not legally be revealed.

I want to be proud of the Democratic part as the party of intelligence. I don't want it to participate in slanting the facts. Usually I am proud. But the last couple of days have rubbed me the wrong way.

Thoughts?

[SlogginThroughIt]

1. Wow. Sorry you are not proud of our party.

Personally I think the republican party is the one to be disappointed in but that’s just the democrat in me.

[LAS14]

3. A good example of not engaging in intelligent discourse. I said I was not proud of...

.. ONE reaction over the course of TWO days.

If you require yourself to be proud of every single thing that Democrats do, you won't be a help to the party.

[SlogginThroughIt]

6. Hey that's cool however you feel is how you feel.

I am a big help to the party timewise, moneywise, and energywise. I pour a ton of each into my local, state and fed candidates.

What I won’t do is post things that talk about how I am not proud of my party. Ever.

[mr_lebowski]

8. Indeed. I would've phrased it as 'questioning the strategy' and 'lack of clarity'

Welcome to DU, btw. Seems like you'll get along here well

[Tipperary]

11. I think you missed the op's point.

Completely.

[SlogginThroughIt]

15. No I don't believe I did. At all.

I think the OP is mischaracterizing the reactions of those in our party. I also think the OP is taking individual responses and homogenizing them and posting negative spin on that here. It’s ok if the OP is misunderstanding. That happens. But I see nothing in our politicians individual responses to spread the message of being dissapointed in the party.

[shanny]

31. your concern is noted.

[genxlib]

2. Democrats with security clearance should see the whole thing

If there are parts that can't be revealed publicly, I will accept that. But only if it is seen by enough bipartisan leaders to allow for a confident belief that everything is kosher with what we are being told.

But that only gets us as far as a release. It could get much more complicated if the classified material is actually damaging in an important way. Especially if the determination of what is classified is determined to politically motivated. That becomes a huge fight without the ability to even tell people what they are fighting about.

[LAS14]

4. Interesting. Would the law allow them to also see evidence obtained by a grand jury?

[genxlib]

9. That is way out of my league to answer

But what Mr. Lebowski says below makes sense to me.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that there is a lot more to this report than the guilt of Trump. It also describes how the Russians screwed with us (with or without help). That needs to be in the public so that we can have a fuller understanding of how to guard against future fuckery.

[mr_lebowski]

16. And this frankly would be a very wise angle for the House Dems to take ...

I'd be harping on this point mostly ... need for public to be informed of what to look out for, and more importantly, need for Congress to know what legislation may be required to further the integrity of the Elections.

It's kind-of a no-brainer argument to be making ...

We DEFINITELY need some stronger laws against COLLUSION with foreign intelligence services by Candidates for Office and their Campaigns (and long-time old buddies), that is pretty damn obvious

[mr_lebowski]

12. If Mueller and Barr can see it, the Gang of Eight (minimum) can ...

Nothing is above their clearance level that I'm aware of. Could be wrong, but I believe that's how it's 'meant to be'.

[allgood33]

19. They could seek that from the court if they asked. Barr could ask.

Otherwise we will have to wait for the leak.

[rockfordfile]

22. I bet you Trump is seeing that info. A un-American Republican that colluded with Russia.

[WillowTree]

24. Often not. And I think that's part of what they're arguing about.

[jberryhill]

26. That's a remarkably good question

Actually, if there is information in it, the release of which would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation, then that would be wholly separate from classified information.

[tirebiter]

29. yes

[Chin music]

28. Adam Schiff surely has the credentials to see it.

And guess who's being attacked the worst?

[PeeJ52]

5. I'm thinking they are not speaking correctly. They know there are things the public can not see.

I know there are things I can not and should not see. There is nothing in the report however that the intelligence committee members or perhaps the gang of 8 shouldn't be allowed to see. The unredacted report can not be held hostage within the executive branch.

[mr_lebowski]

7. At absolute minimum there's no reason that the Gang Of Eight shouldn't see the whole thing

Let them decide between them what's appropriate to disburse to full House and Senate Intel Committees (though it should be the vast majority of the Report).

How does one define 'evidence obtained by a Grand Jury', btw? Jurors don't go out and collect evidence, obviously, so how is this defined?

I believe it's mostly Grand Jury proceeding/deliberations that are 'private', not 'evidence' involved in them. I could be wrong though.

However, one does not want to taint further grand jury proceedings by release of certain bits of evidence, one would think.

Barr is the last person we should trust to decide what Congress gets to see.

Repukes didn't settle for that when it came to Fast/Furious, Benghazi, Hillary's Email, or the IRS 'scandal'. They got friggin' everything (eventually), IIRC.

Democrats in Congress need to insist on the same wrt this report. PERIOD.

[WillowTree]

25. Grand juries have subpoena power and use it often.

That would be "evidence obtained by a Grand Jury."

[mr_lebowski]

32. I can't see how this would exceed the purview of the Gang of Eight to see

I could be wrong, but if you have the highest possible Nat'l Sec clearance, how could such 'Grand Jury' evidence be withheld from them, esp. when the subject here is ... National Security?

I really would think that if Barr can see it ... so can they.

[WillowTree]

34. Most Grand Jury proceedings are sealed.

At least they were when I spent 3 months as foreperson a few years ago.

[jberryhill]

27. What would you think of this, though....

Classified information is one thing.

Information the release of which would compromise an ongoing criminal investigation is another kettle of fish entirely.

[tirebiter]

30. It's still not public. Potential jurors would not see it.

[jberryhill]

33. Yes, but that remains a ground for non-disclosure to Congress....

...classified or not.

It's not a matter of whether it is public or not. It is categorically not the type of information that is disclosed to Congress.

[Wounded Bear]

10. Maybe not bashing, but definitely questioning their intelligence/integrity...

Saying the "whole report" includes the fact that it may be redacted for legal reasons. And releasing it to Congress is not releasing it to the general public. The intel committee can see all of the "secret" intel stuff anyway. We can at least trust the Dems to not leak it to the Russians, if not the Repubs.

Barr and Trump are stonewalling. Let them do the word parsing and hair-splitting.

[UniteFightBack]

13. Like Joe said this morning it is the Republicans who suffer from INTELLECTUAL ROT.

Yes we must insist on seeing the whole report. It would be nice if we could take bullshit Barr at his word but COME ON..he was sent in to orchestrate this cover up.

I'm not sure how you would perceive this a the Dem's slanting the facts when the Republcians and it's fake prez have been lying non stop for YEARS now....and what have they been lying about??? THE FACTS.

The Dem's WORST day is better than the Pukes BEST day at this point. Hold your head high.

[Takket]

14. Here is the problem

Should parts if the port be redacted for security or privilege concerns?

YES

is Barr an impartial person to make those judgements?

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NO!

Thus how can we EVER trust that his redactions are legit and not just a cover up of incriminating material???

[Bettie]

17. There are members of congress who have security clearances that

allow them to see the entire thing.

I don't think they are demanding that the entire thing be released to the public, but those congresspersons with clearance should see the entire report.

[msongs]

18. uh oh posted in the wrong thread lol nt

[Cold War Spook]

20. There are people in the intelligence field such as NSA and CIA

who should determine what should be redacted. Congress does not know what agents of these two agencies may be doing that could put them at risk. Except for my medical records which I needed, my army and NSA records have been flagged since Oct 4, 1964 and that is the way I hope they will keep them.

[mcar]

21. ...

[LanternWaste]

23. Your lack of pride is predicated entirely on a "quite possible" hypothesis.

Seems 'slanting' and biased, predisposed to an already-drawn conclusion.

Those are my thoughts.