Why isn't the Mueller report being released completely and unredacted?Can a US president censor a special counsel reportWhy didn't Mueller have to submit a report to Congress?Why did US armed forces retreat from the Philippines completely?Why would Mueller notify the White House that he wants to interview Spicer and Priebus?Why is Mueller not focusing on the 2016 Election?What is known about the Mueller investigation in December of 2017?Did the US request that Russia extradite the 13 Russians charged by Mueller?Is Fox News correct that Mueller shouldn't be going after a campaign finance violation?Is there any provision for Non-Disclosure for Congressmen demanding temporary documents of an ongoing investigation?Has there been any EU reaction to Trump's threat to put a 25% tariff on all EU cars?How does the Mueller investigation compare with former investigations in terms of length of time, money spent, and indictments?Was the Walsh special counsel report (on the Iran Contra) released completely uncensored?

How did Arya get her dagger back from Sansa?

What was the state of the German rail system in 1944?

I caught several of my students plagiarizing. Could it be my fault as a teacher?

Enumerate Derangements

Is Cola "probably the best-known" Latin word in the world? If not, which might it be?

Gibbs Free Energy Notation

How can I close a gap between my fence and my neighbor's that's on his side of the property line?

What does this colon mean? It is not labeling, it is not ternary operator

Type-check an expression

Quoting Yourself

Summing the values of a sequence using expl3

My ID is expired, can I fly to the Bahamas with my passport?

How to improve/restore vintage Peugeot bike, or is it even worth it?

Help to understand a simple example of clist in expl3

Why is parseInt(021, 8) === 15?

Does this article imply that Turing-Computability is not the same as "effectively computable"?

Should I replace my bicycle tires if they have not been inflated in multiple years

What are the differences between credential stuffing and password spraying?

Can Ghost kill White Walkers or Wights?

Which industry am I working in? Software development or financial services?

/dev/mem vs /dev/i2c-1

What happens to matryoshka Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansions?

Formatiing text inside tikz node

What does a yield inside a yield do?



Why isn't the Mueller report being released completely and unredacted?


Can a US president censor a special counsel reportWhy didn't Mueller have to submit a report to Congress?Why did US armed forces retreat from the Philippines completely?Why would Mueller notify the White House that he wants to interview Spicer and Priebus?Why is Mueller not focusing on the 2016 Election?What is known about the Mueller investigation in December of 2017?Did the US request that Russia extradite the 13 Russians charged by Mueller?Is Fox News correct that Mueller shouldn't be going after a campaign finance violation?Is there any provision for Non-Disclosure for Congressmen demanding temporary documents of an ongoing investigation?Has there been any EU reaction to Trump's threat to put a 25% tariff on all EU cars?How does the Mueller investigation compare with former investigations in terms of length of time, money spent, and indictments?Was the Walsh special counsel report (on the Iran Contra) released completely uncensored?













25















I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.



While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.



Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.



However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?



Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?










share|improve this question
























  • Related

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 18:56















25















I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.



While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.



Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.



However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?



Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?










share|improve this question
























  • Related

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 18:56













25












25








25


3






I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.



While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.



Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.



However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?



Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?










share|improve this question
















I have a bit of a confusion in regards to the Mueller investigation.



While it was undergoing, we were repeatedly told that "proving collusion" is pretty much impossible since there's no such thing as "collusion", legally speaking. The best one could hope for from Mueller's investigation is that he would highlight enough ... wrongdoings by Trump and his team, that Congress would end up impeaching him.



Nobody ever actually expected Mueller to do his investigation and end up concluding it with holy moly, I actually just caught Trump in the act of admitting he is a Russian agent! I even have it on tape! Woho! Collusion proved! ... rather, the expectation was always (at least from a Democratic perspective) that the investigation could bring to light certain facts that would make impeachment a viable topic of discussion.



However, now that the investigation has concluded, why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?



Isn't that what the investigation was for? Isn't that why it's called an investigation? If the goal was to simply deliver a yes/no answer to congress with respect to whether Trump can be criminally charged or not, well, we all already knew that was never going to happen. It was the contents of the report, and what consequences those contents may have, that was the primary goal with the investigation, was it not?







united-states donald-trump mueller-investigation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 31 at 4:12









reirab

4,1931626




4,1931626










asked Mar 30 at 15:03









ParaPara

13213




13213












  • Related

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 18:56

















  • Related

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 18:56
















Related

– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56





Related

– De Novo
Mar 30 at 18:56










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















27















... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?




The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.




  • House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019

The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.



So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.



The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.




"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.



Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”



Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.



Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review







share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.

    – o.m.
    Mar 30 at 16:23






  • 16





    Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.

    – Michael_B
    Mar 30 at 17:32






  • 4





    @o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.

    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 30 at 18:08






  • 1





    You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 20:02







  • 2





    "information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.

    – BobE
    Mar 30 at 23:12


















3














The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.



Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Mar 30 at 19:28







  • 1





    Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 4:36











  • @DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 9:12












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40031%2fwhy-isnt-the-mueller-report-being-released-completely-and-unredacted%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









27















... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?




The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.




  • House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019

The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.



So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.



The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.




"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.



Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”



Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.



Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review







share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.

    – o.m.
    Mar 30 at 16:23






  • 16





    Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.

    – Michael_B
    Mar 30 at 17:32






  • 4





    @o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.

    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 30 at 18:08






  • 1





    You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 20:02







  • 2





    "information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.

    – BobE
    Mar 30 at 23:12















27















... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?




The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.




  • House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019

The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.



So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.



The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.




"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.



Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”



Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.



Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review







share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.

    – o.m.
    Mar 30 at 16:23






  • 16





    Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.

    – Michael_B
    Mar 30 at 17:32






  • 4





    @o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.

    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 30 at 18:08






  • 1





    You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 20:02







  • 2





    "information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.

    – BobE
    Mar 30 at 23:12













27












27








27








... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?




The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.




  • House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019

The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.



So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.



The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.




"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.



Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”



Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.



Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review







share|improve this answer
















... why is there then any possible debate on whether the report should be released to all members of Congress, completely unredacted?




The U.S. House voted unanimously to release the Mueller report to the public.




  • House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report ~ NY Times, March 4, 2019

The President has repeatedly concurred, saying publicly that he has no objection to its release.



So there's really no debate on the matter. Everybody agrees that it should be released.



The problem is that the report contains information that cannot be released by law and for national security reasons. The report also contains the personal information of tangential third-parties, and an effort is being made to protect their privacy. There's also an effort to protect the integrity of other investigations that are ongoing. So it will take some time to release the full report, which will undoubtedly be redacted. The Attorney General estimates by mid-April.




"As we have discussed, I share your desire to ensure that Congress and
the public had the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process,” [Attorney General William] Barr wrote to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.



Barr said the Justice Department and the special counsel are “well
along in the process of identifying and redacting” sensitive material,
including material that “by law cannot be made public,” “material the
intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising
sensitive sources and methods; material that could affect other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred
to other Department offices; and information that would unduly
infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of
peripheral third parties.”



Barr said that he anticipates they “will be in a position to release
the report by mid-April, if not sooner.” A Justice Department official
this week told Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages
long.



Barr added that: “Although the President would have the right to
assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated
publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no
plans to submit the report to the White House for privilege review."



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-release-mueller-report-to-congress-by-mid-april-if-not-sooner-will-not-transmit-to-white-house-for-privilege-review








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 30 at 22:54

























answered Mar 30 at 15:37









Michael_BMichael_B

8,85152433




8,85152433







  • 3





    I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.

    – o.m.
    Mar 30 at 16:23






  • 16





    Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.

    – Michael_B
    Mar 30 at 17:32






  • 4





    @o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.

    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 30 at 18:08






  • 1





    You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 20:02







  • 2





    "information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.

    – BobE
    Mar 30 at 23:12












  • 3





    I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.

    – o.m.
    Mar 30 at 16:23






  • 16





    Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.

    – Michael_B
    Mar 30 at 17:32






  • 4





    @o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.

    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 30 at 18:08






  • 1





    You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.

    – De Novo
    Mar 30 at 20:02







  • 2





    "information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.

    – BobE
    Mar 30 at 23:12







3




3





I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.

– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23





I thought the President could unilaterally declassify everything in the report and release it if he wanted to. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Stevenson showed recon photos in the UNSC, after all. Of course it might be unwise to release information if e.g. the US listened to Russian phones, but that must be balanced against the damage by a less-than-100-percent release of the report.

– o.m.
Mar 30 at 16:23




16




16





Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.

– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32





Having the authority to declassify, and exercising that authority, are two separate animals. For the reasons listed in my answer, I don't think it would be wise, legal or decent (in the case of innocent people's personal privacy), to exercise that authority. @o.m.

– Michael_B
Mar 30 at 17:32




4




4





@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.

– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08





@o.m. He may be able to declassify things, but there are other issues of privacy at stake. If I may be a bit tongue in cheek, someone needs to go through the document and make sure that the identity of "Individual #1" is not accidentally released.

– Cort Ammon
Mar 30 at 18:08




1




1





You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.

– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02






You might consider linking to a source that published the letter itself (as in this answer). People get worried about fox news links, though the reporting here is pretty straight forward.

– De Novo
Mar 30 at 20:02





2




2





"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.

– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12





"information that cannot be released by law", if the information you are referring to is grand jury materials then your statement should read "information that cannot be released without a court order". Grand Jury materials have been released before - but only with the written concurrence of the judge.

– BobE
Mar 30 at 23:12











3














The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.



Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Mar 30 at 19:28







  • 1





    Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 4:36











  • @DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 9:12
















3














The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.



Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Mar 30 at 19:28







  • 1





    Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 4:36











  • @DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 9:12














3












3








3







The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.



Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883






share|improve this answer















The other issue is that, as a Special Counsel, rather than an Independent Counsel (Ken Starr), Mueller was still reporting to the AG. Ken Starr was independent from the DOJ and therefore could deliver his report directly to Congress.



Explained elsewhere here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/40070/25883







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 8 at 14:08

























answered Mar 30 at 18:01









Matt KallerudMatt Kallerud

393




393







  • 4





    This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Mar 30 at 19:28







  • 1





    Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 4:36











  • @DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 9:12













  • 4





    This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Mar 30 at 19:28







  • 1





    Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 4:36











  • @DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.

    – Fizz
    Mar 31 at 9:12








4




4





This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.

– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28






This might need a citation or clarification because the wiki article on special prosecutors suggests the two are the exact same thing.

– Denis de Bernardy
Mar 30 at 19:28





1




1





Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)

– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36





Correct in the sense that Starr had to submit a report directly to Congress, but probably incorrect as to the reason for that. I've asked separately for the reason (it's pretty obvious)

– Fizz
Mar 31 at 4:36













@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.

– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12






@DenisdeBernardy: it turns out the reporting requirements are different, so Matt is entirely correct. See my question/answer for the details.

– Fizz
Mar 31 at 9:12


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40031%2fwhy-isnt-the-mueller-report-being-released-completely-and-unredacted%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Bunad

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum