Appeals court temporarily blocks release of Mueller grand jury material to Democrats

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-material-to-democrats

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Sweet Satan, that Fox News article... I won't touch some clearly factual errors in the reporting in there (e.g., it is incorrect to say -- though it is often repeated, and incorrectly -- that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but rather that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution). There's actually precious little "news" about the ruling at all -- most of it is about the impeachment inquiry itself. The story is about -- or should be about -- why the court ruled as it did. What is important to note is that this is a procedural issue, not a substantive one, and the article does point to that. The reason is to give the DOJ more time to bring its case that the materials should not be disclosed. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-materials/ar-AAJyjDi?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[Dashinka 23,243]

5 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Sweet Satan, that Fox News article... I won't touch some clearly factual errors in the reporting in there (e.g., it is incorrect to say -- though it is often repeated, and incorrectly -- that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but rather that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution). There's actually precious little "news" about the ruling at all -- most of it is about the impeachment inquiry itself. The story is about -- or should be about -- why the court ruled as it did. What is important to note is that this is a procedural issue, not a substantive one, and the article does point to that. The reason is to give the DOJ more time to bring its case that the materials should not be disclosed. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-materials/ar-AAJyjDi?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made public?  And yes, I realize it is the House committees that would see this, but they are the representatives of the general public.  Additionally, we certainly know that anything even remotely damaging would certainly be leaked.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made public?  And yes, I realize it is the House committees that would see this, but they are the representatives of the general public.  Additionally, we certainly know that anything even remotely damaging would certainly be leaked.

I think the better and more relevant question here is, is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made "public" (using your definition) in the context of an impeachment proceeding? We don't have a ton of precedent here, but we have to look at what is most analogous, rather than more generally. So what are the analogues?

 

Andrew Johnson

Not applicable; no grand jury convened (AFAIK) to deliberate on evidence relevant to impeachment proceedings.

 

Richard Nixon

Grand jury convened re the Watergate break-in; Nixon named (under seal) as unindicted co-conspirator. Jurors advised of OLC guidance that Nixon couldn't be indicted (probably) so impeachment would be the only way to address his alleged crimes. Evidence went to Congress at the request of the grand jury under seal. 

 

Bill Clinton

Grand jury empaneled; Clinton gave testimony.  AFAIK, this testimony was handed over because it formed the basis of articles of impeachment.

 

So it appears (and I say that in the most weaselly way possible) that there is precedent for grand jury testimony to be handed over under seal to Congress as part of impeachment proceedings where the officer being impeached is not the party to have given testimony to the grand jury. But I defer to the judges on the DC Circuit -- they know a lot more than I do!

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

Just now, elmcitymaven said:

I think the better and more relevant question here is, is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made "public" (using your definition) in the context of an impeachment proceeding? We don't have a ton of precedent here, but we have to look at what is most analogous, rather than more generally. So what are the analogues?

 

Andrew Johnson

Not applicable; no grand jury convened (AFAIK) to deliberate on evidence relevant to impeachment proceedings.

 

Richard Nixon

Grand jury convened re the Watergate break-in; Nixon named (under seal) as unindicted co-conspirator. Jurors advised of OLC guidance that Nixon couldn't be indicted (probably) so impeachment would be the only way to address his alleged crimes. Evidence went to Congress at the request of the grand jury under seal. 

 

Bill Clinton

Grand jury empaneled; Clinton gave testimony.  AFAIK, this testimony was handed over because it formed the basis of articles of impeachment.

 

So it appears (and I say that in the most weaselly way possible) that there is precedent for grand jury testimony to be handed over under seal to Congress as part of impeachment proceedings where the officer being impeached is not the party to have given testimony to the grand jury. But I defer to the judges on the DC Circuit -- they know a lot more than I do!

but the Russian probe has nothing to do with the phone call thingy ? It has been stated there was no collusion and not enough evidence on obstruction 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Nature Boy 2.0

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

but the Russian probe has nothing to do with the phone call thingy ? It has been stated there was no collusion and not enough evidence on obstruction 

I am nominally supposed to be working at the moment (shhhhhhhh.) so this is a quick and dirty analysis. Basically -- we don't know! The information they seek from the testimony was redacted from the report. But in order to get that testimony, the committee needs to prove that it is likely to lead to the development of facts and evidence relating to the question at hand. It doesn't need to pass the higher threshold of "relevance" that is needed for evidence to be admissible at trial -- we're still in the discovery phase. So if there is a good faith basis to seek the information, a court will uphold the disclosure. The court here has said it needs more time to consider the DOJ's argument that disclosure is not permissible. 

 

We just don't know right now. File under: unknown knowables. And it's good we don't know if the testimony is protected against disclosure. 

[Dashinka 23,243]

53 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I think the better and more relevant question here is, is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made "public" (using your definition) in the context of an impeachment proceeding? We don't have a ton of precedent here, but we have to look at what is most analogous, rather than more generally. So what are the analogues?

 

Andrew Johnson

Not applicable; no grand jury convened (AFAIK) to deliberate on evidence relevant to impeachment proceedings.

 

Richard Nixon

Grand jury convened re the Watergate break-in; Nixon named (under seal) as unindicted co-conspirator. Jurors advised of OLC guidance that Nixon couldn't be indicted (probably) so impeachment would be the only way to address his alleged crimes. Evidence went to Congress at the request of the grand jury under seal. 

 

Bill Clinton

Grand jury empaneled; Clinton gave testimony.  AFAIK, this testimony was handed over because it formed the basis of articles of impeachment.

 

So it appears (and I say that in the most weaselly way possible) that there is precedent for grand jury testimony to be handed over under seal to Congress as part of impeachment proceedings where the officer being impeached is not the party to have given testimony to the grand jury. But I defer to the judges on the DC Circuit -- they know a lot more than I do!

Wasn’t this suit to open the Grand Jury testimony brought forth prior to the Democrats “impeachment” proceedings were started?  Regardless, you can say one thing for the Swamp, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money.