Any legal experts out there?

[SHRED]

Link to tweet

[dameatball]

1. Other than the ego trip, I'm still puzzled by what Barr is getting out of this. He is already

comfortably retired and his eventual judgement by history will be negative, at best. The negatives outweigh the positives IMO. He is either much more fanatical than I thought, he has aspirations for family members as a reward for his efforts, or he is somehow under threat (which I don't believe). Plus, if he is that fanatical, what does that say about his so-called close relationship with Mueller? The whole thing just does not add up.

[safeinOhio]

2. It will all show up if one closely

follows the money..

[dameatball]

4. Yeah, that's usually the best rule to follow.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. The rules for Special Counsels don't say one way or the other.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title28-vol2-part600.pdf But it wouldn't matter if it was illegal because Barr almost certainly has done it already anyhow.

[FBaggins]

5. It would be a bad idea... but it would be legal

If, for instance, the President wanted to claim executive privilege on some part of the report, they would have to see it first.

Legally, they don’t have to show it to Congress at all (absent a subpoena and a court agreeing to enforce it)

[MineralMan]

6. We are all legal experts now...

[AncientGeezer]

7. It's not adressed in The Special Counsel law.

[SHRED]

8. It looks like the way they wrote that

There isn't any provision to share it with Congress?

[AncientGeezer]

9. OR..prohibitions....but there WILL be redactions. And there should be.

[SHRED]

10. I don't trust Barr to redact

Full unredacted report needs to go to select House members.