If there's an open space on your bookshelf for an unredacted copy of the Mueller report, you may want to get ready to send a "Thank You" to Reggie Walton, a senior U.S. District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (Was that enough 'District's?)
quote
In an order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking access to the unredacted report, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said Barr's action caused him "to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump."
quote
Barr's "lack of candor," Walton wrote in a 23-page ruling in Washington, calls into question the credibility of Barr and the Justice Department in making redactions to the report. For that reason, Walton ordered government lawyers to give him the complete report so he can evaluate whether the material was properly blacked out.
"The Left does that because they play to the low information voter. If they can turn something into a sound byte that sounds convincing on the surface, they have achieved their goal."
What we have is an Obama era FISC judge who is repeatedly trying to undermine the investigation into FISA abuses. Chuckles the Clown can threaten Supreme Court Judges, but nobody better say a word about this deep state subversive.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-06-2020).]
But he presided over the FISC during the Obama years.
John Roberts appointed him to the FISC in May 2007 and he became the presiding judge from Feb 2013 to May 2014.
True, but for only one year.
quote
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who served as the surveillance court’s presiding judge from 2013 to May 2014, said the role resembles the position of chief judge in a federal trial court with its administrative duties and responsibility to take on at times complex and time-consuming matters. Like the other 10 judges on the surveillance court, the presiding judge spends a week on duty every 11 weeks hearing national security wiretap applications.
During his yearlong service as presiding judge, Walton confronted the fallout from the leaks of National Security Agency files by the former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden. The court faced considerable criticism that judges were rubber-stamping surveillance applications without thought.
And, Walton, like all of FISC's presiding judges was appointed to be chief judge of FISC by.... Chief Justice of SCOTUS Roberts, another Bush appointee.
quote
The chief justice of the Supreme Court designates the presiding judge of the surveillance court, and up until now John Roberts had selected Republican-appointed trial judges to lead the court. Boasberg’s selection made him the first appointee of a Democratic president to sit atop the surveillance court since 2002, when U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly led the court.
I don't care for Judge Walton's witch hunt, but lets try to keep the facts straight.
(I see you did edit your original post to include the time he served as presiding judge and who appointed him)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-06-2020).]
I don't care for Judge Walton's witch hunt, but lets try to keep the facts straight.
(I see you did edit your original post to include the time he served as presiding judge and who appointed him)
Thank you. I just keep seeing his name come up and it seems to me that he has an ax to grind. The swamp has been festering for a very long time and it is going to take more than eight years to disinfect it.
I believe that Bush appointed many Left-leaning judges in order to appease the Liberal Left.
Just as Obama appointed a few Conservative judges.
I think it's hard to tell what is really in a judge's heart just based on limited information. And one that appears Conservative for the first ten years could easily turn out to be very Liberal.
Just look at the arguments made over judges that Trump has appointed. Some we had a LOT of information about, and still had debates over which side of the fence they landed on.
That's a lot chutzpah for a judge whose 2003 financial disclosure that is required by the Ethics in Government Act was COMPLETELY REDACTED except for the filing date and his name on the form.
The Act requires judges and other high-level judicial branch officials to file annual financial disclosure reports as a check on potential conflicts of interest.
