PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I have written about this subject on several occasions, but at least I will feel better if I do so again.

And I do so before heading off for the day to watch the Masters’ Golf Tournament on TV, my favorite tournament of the year.

Without trying to pass myself off as any kind of legal expert, I am glad that a person of solid legal stature – Attorney General William Barr – holds that position. He knows what he is doing to strike the right balance between full, word-for-word release of the Mueller report – an action that would either be illegal or ill-advised on several fronts — and releasing as much of the report as possible.

To me, it is clear that Barr is not setting out to shield President Donald Trump from scrutiny, for, surely, Trump deserves as much scrutiny as possible. Barr cannot protect the president, nor, I think, would he set out to do so.

What Barr is not acceding to are demands from many Democrats that he violate the law or genuine privacy interests by releasing the full report.

Expect an appropriately redacted report in by mid-April.

What many Democrats don’t recognize – or at least don’t want to recognize – is that, by law, grand jury material is secret and, in general, can be released only with the permission of a judge and then only under specific circumstances.

So far, no judge has been asked to allow release of the grand jury proceedings related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. He apparently relied, at least in part, on those proceedings as he prepared a final report.

According to the Wall Street Journal, few courts have grappled with the question of whether Congress is entitled to grand jury material and, if so, under what circumstances, meaning that there is little precedent for how courts would interpret such a subpoena, if one comes, as is likely, from a House committee.

Just earlier this week, as Barr appeared before a committee in Congress to describe the budget for the Department of Justice (which he leads), members reiterated desire for the full report.  Barr was there for another purpose — to describe the budget for his department, but, to no one’s surprise, the hearing didn’t deal with the budget…it dealt with the release of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said last week, in a case unrelated to the Mueller report, that judges have no inherent authority to release grand jury evidence to individuals seeking the information.

An earlier opinion allowed Congress to obtain such information only in the context of an impeachment proceeding, which may mean that House Democrats move soon choose to file impeachment charges against Trump, which he may deserve in spades, but which may be related more to seeing a full, un-redcated Mueller report than to move forward on impeachment articles.

Beyond grand jury proceedings, there are at least two other bases for redacting parts of the Mueller report. One is that persons may have been identified in the report who were never charged with any offenses, so releasing their names would subject those individuals to invasions of privacy.

A second reason is that it is possible parts of the report may have national security implications, making release against the best interests of the country.

Barr understands these issues very well and, further, said he would make his own reasoned decisions – not influenced by Trump and not influenced by left-of-center Democrats.

I, for one, am glad a person of Barr’s credentials is in this hot seat.

Here are a couple reasons why.

First, I still remember the occasion when Barr was up for confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Various Democrats on the committee wanted Barr to pledge that, when he received advice from those who work for him, including in the internal ethics office of the Department of Justice, he would follow it.

He said, no, he would make his own decisions after taking stock of staff recommendations, which is exactly what any top executive should do.

Second, Barr has functioned so far as an Executive Branch official. He doesn’t report to Congress; he relates to Congress. He makes his own decisions and then stands up to be counted as being responsible for those decisions.

Based on my own experience as an Oregon state government high-level manager – without comparing myself in any way to Barr – that’s exactly how a high-level official should act.