It felt like I was blind-sided.

This is from the beginning of U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Berman Jackson's case filing. Like an "executive summary."

quote On Friday, March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III delivered his Report of the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election1 to the then-Attorney General of the United States, William P. Barr. But the Attorney General did not share it with anyone else. Instead, before the weekend was over, he sent a letter to congressional leaders purporting to “summarize the principal conclusions” set out in the Report, compressing the approximately 200 highly detailed and painstakingly footnoted pages of Volume I – which discusses the Russian government’s interference in the election and any links or coordination with the Trump campaign – and the almost 200 equally detailed pages of Volume II – which concerns acts taken by then-President Trump in connection with the investigation – into less than four pages. The letter asserted that the Special Counsel “did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” and it went on to announce the Attorney General’s own opinion that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” The President then declared himself to have been fully exonerated. The Attorney General’s characterization of what he’d hardly had time to skim, much less, study closely, prompted an immediate reaction, as politicians and pundits took to their microphones and Twitter feeds to decry what they feared was an attempt to hide the ball. Even the customarily taciturn Special Counsel was moved to pen an extraordinary public rebuke on March 27: The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. Mueller called for the immediate release of his report, but it remained under wraps for another three weeks. On April 18, 2019, the Attorney General appeared before Congress to deliver the report. He asserted that he and the Deputy Attorney General reached the conclusion he had announced in the March 24 letter “in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [or CREW] immediately fired off a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for any records related to those consultations, but the Department of Justice demurred [declined] on the grounds of the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. What remains at issue today is a memorandum to the Attorney General dated March 24, 2019, that specifically addresses the subject matter of the letter transmitted to Congress. It is time for the public to see that [memorandum.]

In what universe is that not skewering former U.S. Attorney General William Barr?

skewer
To criticize or ridicule, sharply and effectively. (Merriam-Webster online English dictionary.)

That's the funniest "eff'in" ruling from a federal judge I've ever laid eyes on. She pulled Barr's trousers down and paddled his behind. She broke out a canister of court case filin' whoop-ass and emptied it straight into Barr's face, just like it was a spray can full of Reddi-whip. Law students will be reading this court case filing and ROFL'ing about it when everyone who was alive during the case is long dead and gone. It's a court filing for the ages.

"Prove me wrong."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2021).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: That's the funniest "eff'in" ruling from a federal judge I've ever laid eyes on.

It probably is for you because I doubt that you have ever perused even a handful of Federal Court Opinions and even then you have no idea what you're looking at.

You've made it obvious in this thread that you don't know a case summary from a disposition.

The ONLY thing that you see, (and keep repeating over and over), is some snarky language from a judge that has ZERO legal effect on the outcome of the case but it has some low-brow entertainment value for low information Leftists incapable of discerning what actually resulted.

The FACT remains that the defendant (DOJ) actually WON the majority of that case and arguably the BIGGEST WIN for them was getting count 2 of the complaint dismissed but you have absolutely NO CLUE why that is important.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-08-2021).]

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-08-2021).]

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2021).]

"Biden DOJ to appeal court order to release Trump obstruction memo"

quote The Department of Justice is appealing a judge's decision ordering the release of a 2019 legal memo prepared for then-Attorney General William Barr in the wake of the Mueller investigation. In a pair of court filings submitted late Monday, the DOJ under Attorney General Merrick Garland said it would fight against the full release of the memo, but would agree to make parts of it public. The internal legal memo prepared by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel is said to provide justifications for Barr's stance that former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation did not support obstruction of justice charges against former President Trump. Earlier this month, District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered that the document be made public and accused Barr and Justice Department lawyers of making misrepresentations about why it should be kept secret. . . . n its court filings Monday night, the Justice Department said it would only appeal Jackson's order to the extent that it required the release of Section II of the memo which Jackson described as a blend of legal and strategic advice on how to respond to the Mueller report as well as "legal analysis in its assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the purely hypothetical case" of whether to prosecute the president. . . . Earlier this month, a group of Senate Democrats sent a letter to Garland urging him not to appeal Jackson's decision. . . .

Harper Neidig for The Hill; May 24, 2021.
https://thehill.com/regulat...ump-obstruction-memo

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-25-2021).]