March 5, 2020

THE TIGHTENING NOOSE:

A GOP-appointed judge's scathing review of William Barr's 'candor' and 'credibility,' annotated (Aaron Blake , March 5, 2020, Washington Post)

Below is the meat of the 23-page ruling from Walton, who was appointed by George W. Bush, with annotations and analysis in yellow.

The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report and its impacts on the Department's subsequent justifications that its redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shares the plaintiffs' concern that the Department "dubious[ly] handl[ed] [ ] the public release of the Mueller Report." EPIC's Mem. at 40; see also id. ("Attorney General[] [Barr's] attempts to spin the findings and conclusions of the [Mueller] Report have been challenged publicly by the author of the [Mueller] Report. [ ] Attorney[] General[] [Barr's] characterization of the [Mueller] [R]eport has also been contradicted directly by the content of the [Mueller] Report."); Leopold Pls.' Mem. at 9 ("[T]here have been serious and specific accusations by other government officials about improprieties in the [Department's] handling and characterization of the [Mueller] Report[.]"). Accordingly, the Court concludes that it must conduct an in camera review of the unredacted version of the Mueller Report to assess de novo the applicability of the particular exemptions claimed by the Department for withholding information in the Mueller Report pursuant to the FOIA.


Posted by at March 5, 2020 5:42 PM

  

« THE lEFT IS THE rIGHT: | Main | HE WAS DONALD BEFORE IT WAS COOL: »