Attorney General Barr exscriated by federal Judge.

[JimL]

Ah, so you're abandoning the "Mueller disagreed with Barr" narrative. Smart, but an explicit concession would have been more honest.

No, I'm not abandoning the obvious. Mueller did disagree with Barr's summary. Barr misconstrued, took out of context, cherry picked his summary of the report to make it seem as though there was nothing to see there. Even you know how and why that sort of thing is done.
http://www.newsweek.com/robert-muell...russia-1410898

The judge's order has nothing to do with Barr's letter or Mueller's snitty response, so I don't even know why you brought it up.

I brought it up because your interpretation of the Judges analysis, as in the above statement, is nonsense.

He's only asked to review the redacted portions to see if the DOJ, Mueller's own team, and independent career attorneys happened to miss anything, which is unlikely.

Wrong. Go back and actually read what the Judge said. He questioned Barr's very credibility, and the credibility of his summary of the Mueller report.

Trust me, Jimmy, it's a nothing burger. Don't get your hopes up.

We shall see. March 31 I believe was the Judges timeline for turning over the report.

[firstfloor]

Barr should be behind bars.

[Mountain Man]

No, I'm not abandoning the obvious. Mueller did disagree with Barr's summary. Barr misconstrued, took out of context, cherry picked his summary of the report to make it seem as though there was nothing to see there. Even you know how and why that sort of thing is done.
http://www.newsweek.com/robert-muell...russia-1410898

Let's quote a portion of your own source:

After U.S. Attorney General William Barr provided Congress his summary of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on March 24, Mueller wrote a letter to Barr later that month detailing his objections to the summary and concerns that it did not properly reflect his team's findings.

Two sources with inside knowledge of the exchange told The New York Times that Mueller and Barr discussed the summary in the days after the letter was sent, but they could not comment on the specific points that Mueller had objected to.

"The special counsel emphasized that nothing in the attorney general's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec, said in a statement on Tuesday afternoon to The Times. "But he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the special counsel's obstruction analysis."

Wrong. Go back and actually read what the Judge said. He questioned Barr's very credibility, and the credibility of his summary of the Mueller report.

First of all, it wasn't a summary, and was never intended to be a summary. It's simply a letter that details the special counsel's principle findings, and to date, nobody has shown where Barr's letter got anything wrong.

And reading the judge's little screed, he, too, fails to point out any discrepancies, and hints, apparently without any evidence other than his own unfounded suspicions, that the DOJ might be hiding legally releasable material behind the redactions, redactions which even Mueller's own team signed off on and which have been gone over with a fine toothed comb by both the DOJ and career attorneys experienced in vetting FOIA requests. Do you think all those eyeballs missed something? I doubt it.

I'm telling you, Jimmy, it's a nothing burger.

[JimL]

Let's quote a portion of your own source:

After U.S. Attorney General William Barr provided Congress his summary of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on March 24, Mueller wrote a letter to Barr later that month detailing his objections to the summary and concerns that it did not properly reflect his team's findings.

Two sources with inside knowledge of the exchange told The New York Times that Mueller and Barr discussed the summary in the days after the letter was sent, but they could not comment on the specific points that Mueller had objected to.

"The special counsel emphasized that nothing in the attorney general's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec, said in a statement on Tuesday afternoon to The Times. "But he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the special counsel's obstruction analysis."

Sure, cherry pick a quote in the article coming from the DOJ in defense of the DOJ.

First of all, it wasn't a summary, and was never intended to be a summary. It's simply a letter that details the special counsel's principle findings, and to date, nobody has shown where Barr's letter got anything wrong.

It's a summary, or letter if you will, that is misleading and taken out of context just as Mueller complained.

And reading the judge's little screed, he, too, fails to point out any discrepancies, and hints, apparently without any evidence other than his own unfounded suspicions, that the DOJ might be hiding legally releasable material behind the redactions, redactions which even Mueller's own team signed off on and which have been gone over with a fine toothed comb by both the DOJ and career attorneys experienced in vetting FOIA requests. Do you think all those eyeballs missed something? I doubt it.

Again, all according to the DOJ.

I'm telling you, Jimmy, it's a nothing burger.

Again, we shall see once the G.W. Bush appointed Judge gets the unredacted report.

[Mountain Man]

Again, all according to the DOJ.

And? I've seen no reason to think they're lying, and neither have you. You're only buying this narrative because it's telling you what you want to hear.

Prepare yourself for another disappointment, Jimmy.

[JimL]

And? I've seen no reason to think they're lying, and neither have you. You're only buying this narrative because it's telling you what you want to hear.

Prepare yourself for another disappointment, Jimmy.

Well, you don't see any reason to believe that Trump is ever lying either. In other words you're deluded, MM. The Judge obviously see's it, and so does everyone else that isn't a deluded Trumpster.

[Watermelon]

What gives that particular Judge any standing in this matter? The redactions were approved by Meuller's own team and other parties directly involved. This is just some random liberal judge who wants a peek.

[Sparko]

Barr should be behind bars.

I see what you did there.

...needs work.

[Mountain Man]

What gives that particular Judge any standing in this matter? The redactions were approved by Meuller's own team and other parties directly involved. This is just some random liberal judge who wants a peek.

The answer to this question is in the story linked in the OP:

Walton issued his decision in connection with two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking the report and related records. One was brought by BuzzFeed and its reporter Jason Leopold. The other was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

I still say that the chances of this judge finding something that the DOJ, Mueller's own team, and seasoned career attorney's missed is slim to none.

I've seen some speculation that the unredacted report was leaked to the media months ago, but nobody dares to publish any of the redacted material because it would be a serious federal offense, and a "sources say" attribution wouldn't be enough to get them off the hook, so they're hoping the courts will give them the okay to use information they already have.