House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report

NYTimes

In a second rebuke by fellow Republicans in the same day, the House votes with zero opposition for full release of Mueller report to the public and to the Congress, undermining the "which hunt" rhetoric that the White House still chooses to stick to.

“This report must see the light of day, must be available to the American public for a catharsis that will allow us to start with the facts, understand what happened and begin to rebuild the faith of the American people,” said Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut and a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, which has undertaken its own Russia investigation.

424 representatives voted, 420 showed bipartisan support and 4 Republicans voted present. Not one person opposed it.

The four “present” votes came from two libertarians who routinely oppose such resolutions, Representatives Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and two ardent Trump loyalists, Representatives Matt Gaetz of Florida and Paul Gosar of Arizona.

You can't get any more bipartisan than unanimous. Every single representative, which means every single person that represents all of us who are talking right here, right now, wants this released to us.

There's some good news for all of us asking for transparency.

a reply to: Duderino

Neat.

House resolution. Too bad it carries no weight.

I'm hoping Congress gets to see it, let alone us folk.

originally posted by: Duderino
NYTimes

In a second rebuke by fellow Republicans in the same day, the House votes with zero opposition for full release of Mueller report to the public and to the Congress, undermining the "which hunt" rhetoric that the White House still chooses to stick to.

“This report must see the light of day, must be available to the American public for a catharsis that will allow us to start with the facts, understand what happened and begin to rebuild the faith of the American people,” said Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut and a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, which has undertaken its own Russia investigation.

424 representatives voted, 420 showed bipartisan support and 4 Republicans voted present. Not one person opposed it.

The four “present” votes came from two libertarians who routinely oppose such resolutions, Representatives Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and two ardent Trump loyalists, Representatives Matt Gaetz of Florida and Paul Gosar of Arizona.

You can't get any more bipartisan than unanimous. Every single representative, which means every single person that represents all of us who are talking right here, right now, wants this released to us.

There's some good news for all of us asking for transparency.

Perhaps they will change the law?
Congress can change doj procedures cant they?

a reply to: Duderino

The way I see it is if he thinks its a witch hunt and is so certain of his innocence he will want the report to be released because it will bear that out.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Congress can change doj procedures cant they?

Separation of powers, doncha know.

A new Special Counsel law would be needed. But it wouldn't work retroactively and good luck with that anyway.

a reply to: Phage

Oh so this is an attempt to change the rules while the game is still ongoing?

Hmmm....those grapes seem sour.


Edit:
Ironic congress wants to do what it says trump is doing with the national emergency act

a reply to: shooterbrody

No.

It's a resolution from the House. It is legally meaningless.

a reply to: Phage

You're such a roody poo, but you are right. This really means nothing, unfortunately. I have my doubts that any congressperson gets a glimpse at the report.

Such an enormous waste of tax dollars...

Double post, sorry.

I LOVE YOU

Lindsey seems to have blocked this in the senate.
Too bad.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I wonder what he's afraid of.

a reply to: Phage

Perhaps he supports seperation of powers?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Apparently not. He voted against the national emergency thing. You know, to stop the president from going against the law passed by Congress?

a reply to: Phage

Didn't congress pass the national emergency act ?
I am confused?
Following the law is going against the law?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. It's complicated.
Congress said don't spend money on the wall. President said neener neener, I'm gonna.

It's supposed to be Congress what says where the money goes.

a reply to: Duderino

In a second rebuke by fellow Republicans in the same day,

I love how the New York Slimes is always so impartial.

Trump doesn't have a lot of "fellow" Republicans.

He has a Democratic party full of Progressives and a Republican party that is trying to get rid of Progressives, but many are still there.

A "Rebuke" of his national emergency would have been a veto-proof vote.

It wasn't... it was just congress-critters posturing for their next primaries because they knew that he would veto so they could make political hay with it since it won't go through Congress again with the needed 67 votes.

As far as the "Bueller Report" goes, let's hope everyone gets to see it.

Then let's go from there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. It's complicated.
Congress said don't spend money on the wall. President said neener neener, I'm gonna.

It's supposed to be Congress what says where the money goes.

So congress didn't pass the national emergency act?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody

Apparently not. He voted against the national emergency thing. You know, to stop the president from going against the law passed by Congress?

How exactly is Trump going against the Emergency Powers Act passed BY congress?

Inquiring minds would like to know... have a citation on that?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. It's complicated.
Congress said don't spend money on the wall. President said neener neener, I'm gonna.

It's supposed to be Congress what says where the money goes.

You mean like exactly how Obama moved money around that wasn't allocated with the Dream act?

I do not think that Meullers report should all be made public. Some parts can, as long as it does not jeopardize national security or cause undue hardship with other countries we are allied with. I am sure there could be some influential people in other governments with their names on that report and it could be misinterpreted by their people. What is in that report goes well into the presidency, there could be classified information on it.