General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'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.
Link to tweet
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/garland-decision-release-hur-report-00140806
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 Hurs probe was sure to draw a flurry of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits from news organizations and Bidens political foes. House Republicans could also have subpoenaed the report and related records. The letter Bidens lawyers sent to Hur indicates transcripts exist of the prosecutors 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. Hurs 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.
hlthe2b
(114,510 posts)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)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
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(181,653 posts)Response to LetMyPeopleVote (Original post)
Post removed
SamKnause
(14,942 posts)Attorney General Barr had no problem interfering.
He faced no consequences.
crickets
(26,168 posts)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.
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*
boston bean
(36,961 posts)dpibel
(4,008 posts)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)It AG Garland had censored this report, there would be a ton of attention given to this report closer to the election
Link to tweet
dalton99a
(95,141 posts)mcar
(46,288 posts)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.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,653 posts)mcar
(46,288 posts)at Justice and also knows Hur.