Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(181,653 posts)
Fri Feb 9, 2024, 09:26 PM Feb 2024

'Confidential' in name only: Merrick Garland's delicate decision to release the Hur report

In theory, the attorney general could have kept the report secret. In practice, he had only one option. If AG Garland did not release the Hur report, it was going to be either leaked or disclosed by the GOP in a hearing which would give the report far greater exposure and coverage.



https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/garland-decision-release-hur-report-00140806

The White House is livid over the Justice Department’s release of a special counsel report that painted a devastating portrait of Joe Biden. But Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to release it was a foregone conclusion — and anything short of publicizing the full report would have been worse.....

In practice, though, burying or censoring the report would have been untenable, former Justice Department leaders say.

They described a high-stakes calculus for both Garland and Hur informed by previous politically sensitive investigations: Special counsel reports have always been made public in recent years, and Garland would have been slammed by Republicans and the press if he tried to keep this one under wraps. Hur, meanwhile, clearly understood that political reality, so the harsh language he included was exactly what he expected the public to see.....

While the DOJ regulations used to appoint special counsels call for their final reports to be confidential and Hur labeled his as such, in recent years it has become customary for attorneys general — facing political pressure — to vow to release them publicly to the extent the law allows.

Despite the caterwauling from the White House this week, the conclusion of Hur’s probe was sure to draw a flurry of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits from news organizations and Biden’s political foes. House Republicans could also have subpoenaed the report and related records. The letter Biden’s lawyers sent to Hur indicates transcripts exist of the prosecutor’s interviews with Biden, so the memory lapses Hur cited may have become public whether Hur had colorfully characterized them or not......

And while some Justice Department veterans said the buck stops with Garland, others argued that the attorney general had no choice but to release the report Hur delivered. Hur and his team likely would have understood that their words would become public, even though the report was labeled “confidential.”

“Mr. Hur’s report had to be released unedited lest the attorney general were to be accused of protecting President Biden,” Rossi said.

Even if the full report was not leaked, the report would had eventually come out when Comer or Gym Jordan subpoenaed Garland, Hur and the report itself. Disclosure of the full report would have been a bigger deal than releasing the report in full this far in advance of the general election.
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

hlthe2b

(114,510 posts)
1. What absolute and complete bullshit. Garland had every right to discuss the report BEFORE it
Fri Feb 9, 2024, 09:36 PM
Feb 2024

was FINALIZED and to demand the opinion-only commentary be edited. Neil Katyal (who wrote the damned statute for SC) as much as said so.

Just because someone tells you to hold the gun to your head rigged to go off at the whim of others--doesn't damned well mean you have to do so.

Merrick Garland was truly gutless on this. That is my position--same as many many others (including former USAGs and DOJ officials who have hit all the mechanisms to register their dissent in the past day). I have defended Merrick Garland despite everything else to date, including his unforgivable three-year delay in investigating Trump and Jan 6. But, damn, I was wrong.

LetMyPeopleVote

(181,653 posts)
9. Yes, AG Garland could had edited the report but Hur would had leaked
Sat Feb 10, 2024, 12:55 PM
Feb 2024

Hur is a bad actor who was working with the GOP. Hur was a bad choice. One of the lawyers on MSNBC just speculated that Hur is still mid-career and put this crap into the report to improve job prospects in a future GOP controlled DOJ. It may have been better if AG Garland had selected an older DOJ attorney who was near the end of their career. It is clear that Hur has ambitions and wanted to help TFG.

If AG Garland had edited or not released the report, Hur and the GOP would had gotten it out at a time where this report would have hurt President Biden more. See https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18670346

Response to LetMyPeopleVote (Original post)

SamKnause

(14,942 posts)
3. When will the entire Special Council Mueller report be released in full ???
Fri Feb 9, 2024, 09:49 PM
Feb 2024

Attorney General Barr had no problem interfering.

He faced no consequences.

crickets

(26,168 posts)
4. The author buries the lede far too deep into the article.
Fri Feb 9, 2024, 10:34 PM
Feb 2024
Gorelick said that under the circumstances it would have been “very hard not to” release Hur’s report, but that the better policy is for such reports to remain secret.

“I would say any report should be confidential,” she said. “You make a charging decision or not and that should be the end of it.”


“As a general proposition, a public report is a mistake,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 1998 law review article. “It violates the basic norm of secrecy in criminal investigations, it adds time and expense to the investigation, and it often is perceived as a political act. It also misconceives the goals of the criminal process.”


Pdf file Section D. Reports, p 2155 - surprising coming from Kavanuagh and definitely worth reading the additional page and a half.

DOJ needs an overhaul, along with the rules governing special counsel. Things seem to have been weaponized against Dems as far back as the Clinton years, with no improvement over time. It's obvious that "norms" have been rendered meaningless.

*sigh*

dpibel

(4,008 posts)
6. Modern "journalism"
Fri Feb 9, 2024, 10:42 PM
Feb 2024

Not criticizing the OP for posting this.

But, really.

This is not labeled opinion or analysis. So it's presented as straight news.

And it says, "Despite the caterwauling from the White House this week..."

That, my friends, is classic editorializing.

Not to mention, this piece unironically uses Bill Fucking Barr as a primary source.

Then again, maybe we're supposed to understand that Politico is not, in fact, a source of news. Commentary only.

LetMyPeopleVote

(181,653 posts)
7. I also think that Hur is an asshole/bad actor who was trying to bait AG Garland into rewriting this report
Sat Feb 10, 2024, 12:46 PM
Feb 2024

It AG Garland had censored this report, there would be a ton of attention given to this report closer to the election


mcar

(46,288 posts)
10. I agree with this
Sat Feb 10, 2024, 12:55 PM
Feb 2024

Hur put Garland in an impossible situation: redact the report and have Hur's editorializing leak drip by drip over the next several months or release the entire report and, well we know what happened.

Garland's mistake IMO is that he appointed Hur in the first place. He knows the guy is a political hack. As some pundit said this morning on MSNBC (was riding my bike so didn't get the name), Garland should have appointed a prosecutor who was at the end of his career who would have done a more straightforward investigation/report.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'Confidential' in name on...