Thread by @marty_lederman

1/ It's hard to say for sure because we're not privy to the negotiations, but from the looks of the exchange of letters it *appears* the Nadler/Barr dispute reduces to a question of how many members can see the non-6(e) redactions, and how many staff members they can each bring.

2/ If so, this would be an *absurd* hill on which *either* side should plant its flag in litigation. Surely a compromise is possible. On the one hand, Barr doesn't have a terribly compelling reason not to allow all members of HPSCI and HJC to see the lightly redacted version.

3/ On the other, it's reasonable for DOJ to want to prevent leaks that might compromise ongoing cases (these redactions were, after all, made by Mueller's folks), and therefore it's probably reasonable *in the first instance* to limit each member to one staffer or so.

4/ Then, if the Chairs or ranking members conclude that any of the redactions shouldn't have been made--or that there's a compelling reason for more members of Congress or staffers to see them--they can make that case to DOJ and limit further negotiations to those discrete items.

5/ *If* this describes what's at stake here--a very big if, to be sure--courts are going to be *very* unsympathetic to both sides, and send them back to the negotiating table. There may be some subpoena disputes worth litigating these days--

6/ -- such as if McGahn won't testify because Trump is asserting the "former aide immunity" theory that Judge Bates so powerfully rejected in the Miers case. Or if Treasury refuses to hand over tax information to HPSCI that's germane to its counterintelligence investigation.

7/ From what we can see, however, this doesn't *appear* to be such a case. You Can Work It Out.



@jshaub @benjaminwittes @rgoodlaw @just_security @lawfare @RepAdamSchiff @RepJerryNadler @SpeakerPelosi @AndyMcCanse

8/ As for 6(e) material, it's a *tiny* fraction of the Mueller Report. And DOJ can share it with HPSCI, and perhaps HJC, under 6(e)(3)(D) (second sentence). Then, if @RepAdamSchiff concludes any of it's truly important and/or not covered by 6(e), the two sides can discuss that.