HORRID court decision TODAY will affect release of Mueller report

[Grasswire2]

New: Federal judges have no inherent power to order the disclosure of grand jury materials, divided DC Circuit panel says today



[link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gdUxsBn8TbfeW3FFTv34up5AfgP3Zaje/view|

[marylandblue]

1. Well that's going to be appealed for sure.

Doesn't make sense. The rules of civil procedure I think were made by the Supreme Court. Which means courts have the inherent right to interpret or make exceptions, subject to higher court review. Also, if grand juries are part of the judicial branch, what are they? A fourth branch that nobody noticed before?

[Grasswire2]

7. just in time to help Trump and Barr

How conveeeeenient.

I'm beginning to think that someone(s) have gamed out every possibility that could stop Trump from his agenda or hold him accountable and is a couple of chess steps ahead. The Trump pushing of a certain counsel for IRS just came to light this week. Someone or a team of someones has identified the positions and jobs that would be key to retaining power and worked diligently, quietly.

Bannon, Miller, Kellyanne likely suspects. The Trumps themselves aren't smart enough.

[onenote]

14. I don't read the decision as saying courts can't intepret the rules.

But rather as saying, by a 2-1 margin, that the proper interpretation of the rules governing grand jury secrecy is that the exceptions in Rule 6(e) are exclusive. Other courts disagree (and others agree). Whether this decision is appealed will depend on whether the historian who wanted access to decades old grand jury records has the means and interest in continuing to pursue the case.

[marylandblue]

17. I did mention that I thought the court has inherent right to make exceptions.

Wasn't aware that courts are split on this. Still, the argument against the inherent right doesn't make sense to me.

[angrychair]

2. But...

They already have... this makes no sense.

[UTUSN]

3. K&R

[triron]

4. Huh? Thought precedent was already established??

[FBaggins]

15. Actually, there's a circuit split on the issue

I think this makes the second court to weigh in on this side to three on the other (though this court could easily rule the other way en-banc)

Definitely ripe for SCOTUS review.

[Karadeniz]

5. I think it was Glenn Kirschner (?) this morning on msnbc who was explaining that such a request

happens and it's usually requested for "public welfare," or something. He offered the example of a cop who has allegedly abused his position or committed some crime and the proofs are presented to a grand jury. The grand jury is convinced. Cop indicted, but somehow escapes conviction. So, for the public welfare, the prosecutor asks that the grand jury records be released. Apologies if I haven't repeated the example correctly. Anyone can correct me. Kirschner, a former U.S. prosecutor, I think, said it was not uncommon to request grand jury material. So why hasn't this panel of judges heard of this?

[onenote]

16. What state courts may and can do doesn't impact the federal rules

Grand Jury testimony can be and sometimes is released in the circumstances described, but that's typically state grand juries, not federal. The rules and practices aren't necessarily the same.

In federal court cases, release of grand jury testimony outside one of the specified exceptions in rule 6(e) is very rare and often hotly contested.

[unblock]

6. 2-1 on party lines. ginsburg (reagan) and katsas (donald fraud) vs. srinivasan (obama)

you may remember ginsburg from his failed 1987 supreme court nomination -- you know, ol' pot head.

[triron]

9. Katsas should have to recuse himself!

This is high fuckery.

[leftynyc]

8. It wont stop congress from getting it

What's to stop Speaker Pelosi from reading the entire thing into the record?

[samnsara]

10. we will get the report somehow

[Dan]

13. Just a matter of time

It will be leaked....in total.

[Karadeniz]

11. Tried to edit previous reply. Didn't take. Pitiful!

These judges say a judge has no inherent right to release gj material except as specified in the books. However, 3 other appeals courts have ruled that a judge can do so and one extension was for the public welfare once a case is concluded. The one dissenting judge in this case is Obama appointed and cited Sirica's ruling in Watergate.that material could be given to Congress. Seems like an appropriate precedent to cite to me.

[onenote]

18. The precedent from other circuits doesn't bind the DC Circuit.

The dissent argued that Haldeman v Sirica is DC Circuit precedent for a more expansive reading. The majority disagreed and construed that decision more narrowly.

[hardluck]

12. Calm down

All the decision says is that the District Court is limited to the exceptions to grand jury secrecy contained in Fed. R. Crim P. 6e and cannot, under the court's inherent power, make other exceptions.

In this case, an author/researcher was trying to get grand jury materials from a 1957 indictment of an FBI agent. The district court asserted it has inherent authority to disclose historically significant grand jury matters but denied the petitioner's request as overbroad. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the petition holding that it has no authority outside Rule 6(e) to disclose grand jury matter.

[onenote]

19. Its a very unhelpful decision

Basically, it suggests that if there is a pending impeachment inquiry, authorized by Congress, then, maybe, a court could release grand jury testimony to a congressional committee pursuant to the judicial proceeding exception to the grand jury secrecy rules.

[harumph]

20. They're all suckling from the same teat.