• So that the Republicans could put an end to the Iran-Contra scandal during his first stint as Attorney General under the George H. W. Bush administration, William Barr pardoned former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, former National Security adviser Robert C. McFarlane, Clair E. George former head of the CIA’s clandestine services, Duane R. Clarridge CIA Europe, and Alan D. Fiers Jr.
• Attorney General William Barr is not the person to decide who to prosecute– Mueller was hired to do that, and Congress has oversight powers into these findings. The decisions, conclusions and redaction details in Barr Opinion Pieces are not required by regulations and law, so they must therefore be interpreted in the context of another motive.
• Congress has organizations like the intelligence committees who are capable of handling any level of secret and sensitive documents. In addition, these negotiation processes are well-defined and have been utilized often enough that representatives of the Executive Branch and the Legislature should know how to do this without any concern for the risks which the Barr Opinion Pieces referenced.

In summary, the Barr Opinion Pieces’ conclusions on collusion and obstruction, and redactions are not required. It is also clear that Mueller’s findings have revealed the potential of obstruction along with enough evidence to support the original inquiry into collusion. The Democrats have clearly stated that the behavior of the Trump campaign and the President is not acceptable – it is immoral and corrupt. They are also reinforcing a message which criticizes the need for redactions and the motivations behind engaging in a redaction effort. What would be the reason or strategy for such redactions, in light of Attorney General Barr’s history which involved pardoning those who were involved in the Iran-Contra scandal? Are these part of a strategy to create delay tactics that buy time? Are the Presidents’ accelerated campaign efforts to rile up his base related to this? Where does the Fox News cycle fit into this grooming of the base? How do we need to talk about this? For one, according to George Lakoff, we should talk about the Barr Report, the Barr Opinion Piece, or the Barr letters – it is not the Mueller report and we don’t want to reinforce the message that it is anything other than what Barr has produced.

Links to supporting and related articles:

• Jane Mayer New Yorker article on the tightly integrated White House and Fox News cycle – a State TV?
• US Representative Jerry Nadler requesting the full report without any redactions along with supporting data and documents 
• Sally Yates Washington Post Opinion piece clearly stating that the full report should be released 
• Adam Schiff’s now famous speech which clearly indicated that it’s not OK to do what the President and his colleagues did 
• The latest Barr letter to Congress 
• The complete original Barr opinion letter to Congress on redactions 
• The original opinion letter from Attorney General William Barr
• Initial press coverage: Adam Schiff says there’s already enough information to show that Trump should be indicted
• William Barr pardoning Casper Weinberger and others who were engaged in the Iran-Contra scandal.
• George Lakoff article advising us to talk about the Barr Report instead of calling it the Mueller Report