Now that President Trump Donald TrumpTrump lashes out after grand jury seated for New York criminal probe Schumer tees up vote on Jan. 6 commission bill Senators struggle to save Jan. 6 commission MORE has been exonerated of the false accusations of collusion and obstruction, it is time to investigate the investigators. The White House has justly praised the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) MuellerSenate Democrats urge Garland not to fight court order to release Trump obstruction memo Why a special counsel is guaranteed if Biden chooses Yates, Cuomo or Jones as AG Barr taps attorney investigating Russia probe origins as special counsel MORE's investigation for clearing the president of the odious charges that have hung over his presidency since even before his inauguration. The Mueller report overall was favorable to the president, but it also should be remembered as the Mueller special counsel’s final abuse of power. There were nearly 200 pages of irrelevancies about Russia collusion, but it couldn’t disguise the fact that all of those alleged contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign amounted to nothing, legally or substantively. And the fact remains that the institutional climate in the Justice Department has been so hostile to the president that we can be certain that, if there had been even a scintilla of evidence supporting a criminal indictment, it would have been pursued. ADVERTISEMENT Liberal members of Congress and their media allies are furious with Attorney General William Barr Bill BarrWatchdog group suing for Trump obstruction memo blasts DOJ for trying to block release Biden DOJ to appeal court order to release Trump obstruction memo CNN reporter's phone and email records secretly obtained by Trump administration: report MORE because he blew up the Mueller report smear job before it was out of the box. The Mueller team wanted to drop its 448-page bomb on the American people, who then would have had to sort through the innuendo and fake legal analysis without context. To his great credit, the attorney general imposed necessary discipline on the release, explaining to Congress and the American people in stark terms that there was no collusion and no obstruction. For this truth-telling, he faces impeachment threats, not plaudits, from the Democratic-media swamp. The continuing argument over “obstruction” fits with the evident agenda of the anti-Trump Mueller team to create lingering political difficulties for the president, even though he has been cleared of legal jeopardy. Some of the Mueller operation’s so-called obstruction theories are ridiculous, such as that the president could not object to being targeted for investigation. Is it now a crime for someone falsely accused to be upset about it? Mueller presumes guilt and then refuses to “exonerate” President Trump. This turns our legal system upside down and shows the rule of law is no bar to smearing President Trump. What is missing from the Mueller report is an honest discussion about the origins of the unverified hearsay in the “Steele dossier” that formed the underpinning of the unprecedented spying effort against Trump and his campaign. But looking ahead, the Steele dossier, its genesis and the actions of members of the Obama administration who exploited it to target the Trump campaign, are very much in the crosshairs. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigation of the abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process will soon conclude, and may result in criminal referrals. Attorney General Barr also promises an even broader investigation of "Spygate" abuses. And the abuses were not limited to the Justice Department. The U.S. intelligence community was politicized to an extent never seen in history; the State Department played a role in pushing the sham collusion story. And President Obama almost certainly knew about and approved the spying being conducted on the Trump campaign. Judicial Watch is not waiting for government investigators, however. We have pending approximately 50 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits seeking information on the anti-Trump coup. Judicial Watch has, to date, pursued more than 40 FOIA lawsuits in an effort to get to the bottom of the "Russiagate" hoax, including dozens explicitly dealing with the illicit targeting and other abuses of power against President Trump. We also have 10 lawsuits dealing with the Mueller investigation specifically — because this assault on the rule of law is a dire threat to our republican form of government. Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit educational foundation.<doc-sep>The full version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, with redactions, has been released. In the lead up to the report’s release, congressional lawmakers questioned Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary of the report’s conclusions, which he released last month. Last week, House Democrats pressed Barr on his summary of special counsel’s nearly two-year-long investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and potential ties to the Trump campaign. Ahead of the full report being made public, Barr reiterated the conclusions from his summary in a press conference at the Department of Justice. Mueller’s report “found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” to meddle in the election, Barr said. The attorney general also said the report outlined 10 episodes involving President Donald Trump that were examined as potential acts of obstruction of justice. Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein disagreed with some of Mueller’s legal theories about obstruction, adding that they concluded that the evidence wasn’t sufficient enough to establish that the president’s actions amounted to an obstruction of justice offense. Meanwhile, Democrats requested that Mueller testify before the House Judiciary Committee by May 23. Barr said Thursday he had no objection to Mueller testifying before Congress, and also said that a less redacted version of the report will be given to some members of Congress. READ MORE:<doc-sep>NEW YORK, NY - AUGUST 24: Trump Tower stands on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan on August 24, 2018 in New York City. Following new allegations over hush money that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen paid to an adult-film actress, the Manhattan district attorneyÕs office in New York City may seek criminal charges against the Trump Organization in the coming days. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 08: US Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) remarks on the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the US Capitol November 8, 2006 in Washington, DC. Warner said he supports President George W. Bush's nomination of former CIA Director Robert Gates for Secretary of Defense. Warner said he anticipates Gates' confirmation before the end of the year. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) (CNN) — None of the six Democrats who have been provided access to a less-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report have gone to the Justice Department to read it, according to a source familiar with the matter. Republicans and the Justice Department have criticized Democrats for not at least reading the less-redacted version of the report released to lawmakers while they negotiate over access to the fully unredacted report and underlying materials. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham have read it, along with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, have seen it, according to the source, while House Intelligence ranking member Devin Nunes has not. The Justice Department offered 12 congressional leaders – party leaders and the heads of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees – and a staff member each the ability to view a version of the Mueller report that only contained redactions of grand jury material, which the Justice Department has argued it is prohibited by law from sharing without a court order. That version of the report contains material that was redacted in the public report because it was classified, connected to ongoing investigations or contained information about peripheral third parties. But Democrats rejected that proposal from the Justice Department in their quest to obtain the full, unredacted Mueller report and the special counsel’s underlying evidence. They argued they should be allowed to read the full report, with grand jury material, and they also objected to the fact that only the six congressional leaders from each party can read the less-redacted report, pushing for the full Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to be allowed to read it. The Justice Department and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler negotiated over the unredacted report and Mueller’s evidence earlier this week before Nadler’s committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress on Wednesday. If the issue eventually heads to federal court, Democrats will be forced to explain their need for the materials and may be asked why they haven’t reviewed the materials made available to date. Notably, Nunes is the only Republican lawmaker authorized to read the report who has not done so to date. Nunes has a history of not reading Justice Department records, even ones he demands. CNN reported last year that he fought for access to a fully uncensored version of a Justice Department document explaining how the Russia investigation began, but then did not read it when the department made it available to him. In Democrats’ negotiations with the Justice Department, they rejected an offer that would have allowed for an additional staff member review the less-redacted report, for lawmakers to take their notes from the secure facility and for lawmakers to talk amongst those cleared to read the document. Nadler rejected that offer. In the Democrats’ last offer before negotiations ended on Tuesday, Nadler proposed allowing the full membership of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to read the less-redacted report. “The department has placed unacceptable limitations on access to that information,” Nadler said at Wednesday’s contempt hearing. “Their offer would block the members of this committee from reading those sections of the report for themselves. … It would prevent me from speaking with my colleagues with other members of the committee about what I might see. What good is it? Of what use can this committee make of information that I have but can’t discuss with any other member of the committee?” The Justice Department has argued that the less-redacted report was an effort to be accommodating, and Republicans say their refusal to read it shows they aren’t seriously negotiating. “Could it be that the attorney general failed to accommodate the chairman’s demands for information? No. He offered to let the chairman and five other Democrat leaders review the less redacted report at the Department of Justice, including 99.9% unredacted volume on obstruction,” Collins said at the Barr contempt hearing. “In an odd move for anyone demanding access to information, the chairman and other elected Democrats given access have declined to view that report.”<doc-sep>Not a single Democrat has viewed the minimally redacted Mueller report provided to select members of Congress, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday. “Not a single Democrat has even taken the time to go and look at it,” Sanders told reporters, referring to a version of the report that is much less redacted than the version made public. “They’re asking for information they know they can’t have. The attorney general is actually upholding the law.” Almost the entire report — 98.5 percent — is available in the version provided to Congress, according to the Department of Justice. The only redacted portions are grand jury information that by law cannot be disclosed, even to Congress. “Chairman Nadler is asking the attorney general of the United States to break the law and commit a crime by releasing information that he knows he has no legal authority to have,” Sanders said, referring to Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. “It’s truly outrageous and absurd what the chairman is doing and he should be embarrassed by his behavior.” House Democrats voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress on Wednesday, because he refused to turn over the totally unredacted version of the Mueller report, and additional underlying materials. The White House says that would improperly reveal sensitive information, citing the grand jury information as confidential by law. (RELATED: Don McGahn Gives Democrats The Stiff-Arm, Defies Subpoena For Mueller Records) The White House said Trump will assert executive privilege to shut down the Democrats’ demands to see the full report and additional materials. He declined to use that privilege to redact any portions of the report, something the White House has played up since its release. The portions that are redacted in the version released to the public are labeled in each case as being left out for one of four reasons: harm to ongoing matter, grand jury material, classified information, and personal privacy. Nadler has asserted in turn that the White House is bluffing and called that use of executive privilege “utterly without merit.” Follow Rachel Stoltzfoos on Twitter<doc-sep>
The Department of Justice on Monday released a second redacted version of the Mueller report, but the document doesn’t appear to make public new details about the special counsel’s investigation and findings. This redacted version of the report was released in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits filed by the privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and BuzzFeed News reporter Jason Leopold. Leopold noted on Twitter that while the lengthy report itself doesn’t seem to provide new public information, it does shed more light on why certain information was withheld. It appears the version of the report is identical but clearly identifies what info was withheld in response to ongoing investigations, etc. — Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) May 6, 2019 ADVERTISEMENT While the initial version of the Mueller report released last month labeled redactions in categories such as “harm to an ongoing matter” and “grand jury information,” redactions in this version of the document are aligned with certain FOIA regulations. Leopold also tweeted out a letter the Justice Department sent him that explains the redactions made to the report under FOIA. The letter points to FOIA exemptions pertaining to national security, grand jury proceedings and ongoing law enforcement actions. It also cites exemptions that would reveal law enforcement tactics as well as information that could violate individuals’ right to privacy and right to a fair trial or other legal processes. NEW: Here is DOJ's letter accompanying the release of this version of the Mueller report in response to my/@BuzzFeedNews and @EPICprivacy's #FOIA lawsuit, explaining the information redacted under FOIA. pic.twitter.com/FUxSL7AEQM — Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) May 6, 2019 Attorneys for EPIC and Leopold said in court last week that they intended to challenge each redaction made under the FOIA law. Justice Department attorneys argued that both parties should wait until they see this newly released version of the report, suggesting that they believed it was unreasonable for each redaction to be challenged, as some would not be overturned. District Judge Reggie Walton, who is overseeing the case, has set a series of deadlines in the lawsuits that stretch into the summer, indicating that the case will not be fully resolved for several more months. Walton, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, said during last week's hearing that both parties have to make challenges to the redactions "in good faith," noting that the government has the right to withhold information such as grand jury matters. He has also said that he understands the desire to quickly move forward with the case. EPIC is also suing under FOIA for the Justice Department to release the underlying evidence used to draft the Mueller report. The privacy group reiterated in a blog post after the second version of the report was released on Monday that it still plans to challenge each redaction made to the document. Attorney General William Barr Bill BarrWatchdog group suing for Trump obstruction memo blasts DOJ for trying to block release Biden DOJ to appeal court order to release Trump obstruction memo CNN reporter's phone and email records secretly obtained by Trump administration: report MORE said ahead of the initial release of the Mueller report that he would redact certain information from the document. But House Democrats are fighting to obtain the entire report as well as all of the underlying evidence. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee announced earlier Monday that lawmakers would hold a markup of a contempt citation for Barr on Wednesday after he missed a deadline to hand over the documents. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Jerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerMcGahn to testify next week before closed-door House panel over longtime subpoena fight McGahn to sit for closed-door interview with House Democrats House to consider anti-Asian hate crimes bill, protections for pregnant workers this month MORE (D-N.Y.) said later Monday that the Justice Department agreed to meet with his staff on Tuesday about the report.