Reporters Group Asks Judge To OK Release Of Mueller Report's Grand Jury Materials

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo



By Tierney Sneed
April 1, 2019 12:32 pm

A press freedom group requested on Monday that judge authorize the release of the grand jury materials in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

The grand jury materials are just one of several categories of information in Mueller’s report Attorney General Bill Barr has said he will withhold when he releases a public version of the report sometime in mid-April.

While typically under the law, grand jury materials are kept confidential, there is also a legal process for seeking a judge’s OK to release them. Barr so far has not given any public indication that he plans to pursue that option, despite House Democrats’ request that he work with them to do so.

In its filing Monday, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press requested the court’s authorization for the release of all grand jury materials “cited, quoted, or referenced” in Mueller’s report. It comes on the heels of a March 27 request by the group under the Freedom of Information Act that the Justice Department release the full report.

Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/reporters-group-asks-judge-to-ok-release-of-mueller-reports-grand-jury-materials

---

court document at link, above

[rgbecker]

1. Great! This will get the report in front of someone other than Barr.

Better chance that contents will be leaked.

[watoos]

2. That's all well and good but,

why doesn't a Democratic committee do that? I mean c'mon man.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. They have to go through each step of their process

otherwise the courts will probably tell them why they didn't go through their process!

I.e., formally request, then if no answer, subpoena the stuff, and then if no response, take them to court (although in the past, they have apparently had DOJ initiate an investigation but since this is dealing with non-response from DOJ, they might just go to court right away)! They are about to do the vote Wednesday to authorize issuing subpoenas (if they become necessary) should the requestees continue to be non-responsive.

[BigmanPigman]

6. What if they block subpoenas and it goes to SCOTUS, right?

Is this going to take a year? Is there any way to speed it up other than someone leaking it?

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Well theoretically there is an additional step that they do

and that is the "Contempt of Congress" thing - some info about that here - https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-can-congress-do-if-flynn-or-anyone-else-refuses-comply-subpoena (this link was in reference to Flynn, who did eventually comply) -

If Flynn does refuse to comply with the subpoena, the Committee has two basic choices: let it go or pursue contempt remedies against Flynn. Notably, the Congressional Research Service issued a detailed report just last week on Congress’s contempt power and the enforcement of subpoenas—though the timing may be coincidental. Back in March we wrote about the rules governing congressional investigations and Congress’s contempt options:

Just as the Supreme Court has long recognized congressional subpoena power, so too has it upheld the enforcement power of contempt. If a witness refuses to comply with a subpoena to either produce documents or testify, Congress has a few options: inherent contempt authority, the criminal contempt statute, and various civil enforcement mechanisms.

Congress has oversight and investigative powers, and inherent within those is power to issue enforceable subpoenas. In order for congressional investigations to be effective, Congress needs the ability to compel the production of information and enforce its orders. Inherent contempt authority flows from the same idea: the ability to punish those who do not comply is necessary to the execution of legislative functions, including investigations. Under the inherent contempt authority, the House or Senate could call the witness and try him for contempt before the entire chamber. This used to be fairly common, but hasn’t been used in over 75 years.

<....>

2 U.S.C. § 192...makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to testify or produce documents. Under 2 U.S.C. § 194, the committee and full chamber of Congress must certify the contempt referral, which is sent to a U.S. Attorney ‘whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.’ Notably, a criminal contempt charge was certified against Attorney General Eric Holder, but the U.S. Attorney refused to bring it before the grand jury.

So I expect the media would probably have a more direct way to get it and as we know in the past with the Pentagon Papers, the stuff can get leaked.

[BigmanPigman]

8. I thought I heard about Holder and was wondering about that too.

Thanks for the info!

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Nothing came from the Holder thing

which was frivolous as it is.

[in2herbs]

3. How are they going to know/verify that the materials they are asking for are the ones cited, quoted,

or referenced in the Mueller report without access to the report??

[bitterross]

11. People who know what is in it could speak out.

People who know what is in the report and in those proceedings would be free to speak out if the court orders it released. They would not be breaking the law by discussing something that should have been released but was not because the AG held it back improperly.

It would be foolish of the AG to take that risk. Not out of the question with these people though.

[ffr]

5. All to overcome the seige our government is under by the Ruskies.

Way to go red loving republicons!

[bitterross]

10. I love that they quoted Trump saying let it be released.

I skimmed the legal document just to see if they quoted him saying he didn't care if it were release. They did!

He's the head of the Executive Branch. If he can override security clearance objections, he can override the objections of the AG on this and he has done so publicly.