Well, it looks like everything's cleared up then


Gloomy mornings are hard 😓
God bless ACB and DJT!
The shoe on the other foot

Pennsylvania, you're killing me.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site

Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile

I’d like to understand this viewpoint more. Are you saying the full report should have been given to the public immediately? If there are any unreleased sections or redacted portions, will that invalidate the conclusions in your mind?
Not necessarily immediately, but soon. You may recall that the Starr report was published in paperback and sold millions of copies. I’d like to see the modern equivalent with it being posted online.
I think it is absolutely possible, and maybe even likely, that Barr’s summary is an accurate reflection of the whole. But until we (or at least Congress) sees the whole report, we can’t tell.
As for your second question, it depends on what was omitted/redacted and in what context.
Legally, only the Attorney General has to be given the report. Others can ask for it, but legally he is the only one given a copy.
Politically, once it has been reviewed for classified and confidential information and appropriately scrubbed, they need to release it.
Well sure you and I are nobodies, but what if one of those names was “Donald Trump” or “Jared Kushner” or “Vladimir Putin”? That’s relevant and I don’t think can reasonably be redacted without making the whole thing meaningless.
Who is Mikel Jollett? Twitter is why journalism is dying