The news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has closed his investigation without recommending criminal charges against President Trump is a relief. It is not a surprise.

Nor is it a surprise that the news has Trump antagonists clamoring for full disclosure of the special counsel’s final report. Mind you, when skeptics of the Trump-Russia investigation asked what the criminal predicate for it was, and on what basis the Obama administration had decided to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign, we were admonished about the wages of disclosure – the compromise of precious defense secrets, of deep-cover intelligence sources and methods.

Why, to ask for such information was to be an insurrectionist seeking to destroy the FBI, the Justice Department, and the rule of law itself. Now, though, it’s only the uncharged president of the United States at issue, so disclose away!

AG BARR PUSHING TO QUICKLY SHARE MUELLER REPORT CONCLUSIONS, WON'T 'PARSE WORDS, PLAY GAMES,' SOURCE SAYS

Well, if we’re going to have disclosure, fine. But let’s have full disclosure: Mueller’s report in addition to the FISA applications; the memoranda pertinent to the opening and continuation of the investigation; the testimony in secret hearings; the scope memorandum Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued on August 2, 2017, after failing to cite a crime when he appointed Mueller – let’s have all of it.

As far as the special counsel’s report goes, because of the way the regulations work (at least when the Justice Department deigns to follow them), we now have Mueller’s bottom line, but not his reasoning and the underlying facts.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING ANDREW MCCARTHY’s COLUMN IN THE NATIONAL REVIEW

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY ANDREW MCCARTHY