DOJ lawyer can't tell judge the grand jury materials weren't shared with foreign governments

[StarfishSaver]

Justice Department asks judge to block House from getting Mueller grand jury materials, says Watergate decision was wrong

"Howell asked a Justice Department lawyer if grand jury materials that the department is currently withholding from Congress have been shared with foreign government officials.

"'I don't know the answer to that,' the lawyer responded. The attorney said the department would update Howell by Friday on that question."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/08/justice-department-objects-to-house-getting-mueller-grand-jury-info.html

[EveHammond13]

1. holy shit

[ScratchCat]

2. This

Is about to start rolling down hill

[Claritie Pixie]

3. Wow. Congress can't see them but hey - Russia here you go!

Tis the season for TREASON.

[NCjack]

47. Putin had a need to know the contents of the documents. Maybe they reveal names

of candidates for jumping out of hi-rise apartments.

We have the best government that Russia can buy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. What do you want to bet that Putin got a copy

before anybody else did?

[ScratchCat]

9. Nobody is supposed to get them period

That's nobody outside the DOJ. There's going to be no explanation as to why sensitive GJ material was given to Russia or anyone for that matter. Sounds like on Friday, we'll have a DOJ attorney admit Trump gave the info to Putin or he will commit perjury in front of the court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. Exactly. But especially not Putin.

[Maraya1969]

64. I think Trump will somehow block him like he did the others. Congress would do well to subpoena

this lawyer even if he has already stood before the judge.

I just can't imagine Trump not doing something to stop this lawyer from answering the question.

This lawyer should be looking over his shoulder. Putin just kills people like him.

[FakeNoose]

50. The Four Treasons, bringin' down the house

[Iliyah]

54. Plus one . . .

Rudy G . . . . .

[fleur-de-lisa]

5. JFC!

[lagomorph777]

6. Shared with Russia but not with our own Congress.

Add another charge to the Articles.

[StarfishSaver]

7. This was totally buried way down in the story

I don't understand why this didn't set off alarm bells in the media.

[lagomorph777]

8. Thanks for pointing it out!

[TidalWave46]

10. I'm going to guess that the lawyer didn't know the answer, just as he/she stated.

It would be shocking if he/she did know the answer.

[DrToast]

16. Agree. Be cautious in assuming this means they were

I mean it’s possible they were, but the lawyer probably didn’t know and didn’t want to give an answer to something he didn’t know.

[StarfishSaver]

19. But the fact that the lawyer doesn't know is very troubling

And this should definitely cause the press to be asking questions of the people who WOULD know.

[DrToast]

20. Well the Judge wants an answer by Friday

So this isn’t the end of it.

[TidalWave46]

25. This lawyer shouldn't know.

It would be horrifying if the lawyer did know the answer to the question.

[StarfishSaver]

27. The lawyer should know if it was shared with anyone

[DrToast]

28. How would the lawyer know if, say, Barr shared it with someone?

[StarfishSaver]

30. That's my point

The lawyer should be able to say it wasn't shared with anyone. The fact that he/she can't say is a problem. At the very least, it's a tacit admission that they believe their client is capable of egregiously violating the law.

[TidalWave46]

29. Not in this situation. At all.

Barr is about the only lawyer that should currently know the answer to that question. The lawyer in court today should specifically not know the answer to that question.

[MFGsunny]

52. This! n/t

[TrogL]

34. Can you plead the 5th at a hearing?

If the lawyer knew, wouldn’t he be in violation of campaign law requiring him to report it?

[getagrip_already]

35. Lawyers can't plead the fifth.....

Only a defendant can. They can invoke privilege, but it would need to be air tight.

Lawyers often know their clients are guilty, but are generally protected by client privilege.

What they can't do is lie, even by ommision.

Lawyers are officers of the court, not defendants.

[TidalWave46]

36. Campaign law wouldn't require this lawyer to tell the FEC...

If these documents were handed over to a foreign government.

I don't know the answer to the fifth. I don't think this lawyer would need to plea the fifth. Attorney client privilege would come first. Presumably, the lawyer hasn't committed a crime. And that is the natural presumption by judges. It should be.

Lawyers often lie in court. It's a time honored tradition. Even directly to a judge. Rarely does a judge do anything about it for a number of good reasons. The judge does have every right to do something about it. Something like this would probably be different but in the end the judge won't find out if it's a lie or even care. It's my understanding she has requested the question be answered by Friday. If it is answered, the judge would look past any lie that the lawyer might have taken part in. The reason it might be different is you often see judges take a more aggressive position about lawyers lying when a lot of eyes are on the situation. It's more to make a point.

Wish I had a better answer for your questions. It's not my area of expertise. I was a juror on a case once where a police officer and lawyer blatantly lied to the judge and jurors. Nothing was done to either of them. Thankfully, before I sent my scathing letter to the judge and local paper, I read up on lawyers lying in court. It was very educational and there is a lot of good material out there. I did end up sending my letter to the judge but not the paper. At the end of the day the lies were exposed in open court.

There is a poster here who is great at explaining these things. JBerry something or other. Wish I could remember their username. Maybe they will chime in.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Lawyers don't "often lie in court" and lawyers lying in court is not "a time-honored tradition"

And when lawyers lie to judges, the judges do indeed do something about it.

[TidalWave46]

41. Judges rarely do anything about it.

It does happen often.

Example. This judge will in no way look to find out if this lawyer has lied in any way. Why? The judge doesn't care. A request was made for the information by Friday. The judge views the lawyer themselves as being presumed innocent until given reason to believe otherwise. There is no reason to presume this lawyer is lying by the judge.

I sat and watched a lawyer lie to a judge. The lie ended up helping the defense and the judge wasted none of the courts time dealing with something that had no negative impact on the proceedings. This happens. It's real.

[StarfishSaver]

42. I don't know where you practice law, but it sounds like some place out of a Grisham or Turow novel

In my experience - and that of most of the people I know in the legal community - lawyers don't regularly lie to judges and those who do aren't just ignored.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. I believe SS is a lawyer, and so am I (retired).

Lawyers don’t often lie in court because it’s an excellent way to lose both your case and your license. I can’t say it never happens but I’ve never seen it. Do lawyers sometimes speak vaguely or nonresponsively? Yes. Lie outright? Rarely. It’s much too risky.

[TidalWave46]

46. I fully accept the word "rarely" over the word I used, which was "often."

I still don't think SS is a lawyer. Numerous things they have said lead me to believe that.

I was brought to read about lawyers lying to judges when I personally witnessed it as a juror. I was shocked that the judge did nothing about it. I did follow up. No actions were taken. I found out there are many good reasons a judge will do absolutely nothing about a lie. I think the word "rarely" works just because of how many lawyers are actually in front of judges every day. As you know, it's a lot.

[StarfishSaver]

45. I have a law degree

And have practiced and taught law for more than 30 years.

[jberryhill]

62. I got mine at Costco

[jberryhill]

60. To be clear...

Lawyers don't often have the opportunity to lie in court.

It's okay not to know things, and if, for whatever reason, one is asked a factual question, then I'd first run through a mental inventory of whatever is in the record, and point to wherever in the record that answer might be. But if I didn't know to the best of my knowledge that I knew whether a fact was true or not, then wouldn't state it was true. If it was a matter of someone else having told me something, then I would represent that is what that person told me.

This question seems like something that came out of left field, and the lawyer wasn't going to take responsibility for something he may not have been fully informed about.

[TidalWave46]

61. Thanks for the post.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughts on cases and the system in general. You know your stuff yet put these things in terms that non-experts can understand. Sometimes a rare quality in an individual.

[StarfishSaver]

63. True

What's troubling to me is that this lawyer couldn't say their client didn't break the law, undermine the case (since, if DOJ has shared the information with an outsider, pretty much goes their whole argument for keeping it from Congress) and possibly commit an outrageously inappropriate and borderline (although not strictly) treasonous act.

It says an awful lot about their client and what they know about their client that they couldn't say no or even "not to the best of my knowledge." It seems to me that a minimal effort at due diligence would have led most lawyers to confirm whether the materials had been shared with outside parties - unless they knew what kind of people their client is and found it advisable not to ask too many questions because the less they know, the better. That's how mob lawyers act.

[dchill]

11. "'I don't know the answer to that,'"

I do.

[Midnightwalk]

12. Thanks for posting this

I wonder why the follow up question wasn’t who were the materials shared with? Wouldn’t any sharing weaken the president’s case?

Blech. Typing that sucked. Isn’t it disgusting that the DOJ is arguing the president’s case involving information about an investigation into the president?

[Wounded Bear]

13. I think a simple "No" would have been the proper response there...

assuming that was the truth, of course.

[DrToast]

15. We're going to need an answer, but it's possible the lawyer just didn't know

It’s possible the lawyer didn’t know and didn’t want to give an answer to something that could be proven wrong later. But it’s telling either way that he’s suggesting it’s possible!

[Wounded Bear]

17. I get what you're saying...

but perhaps he should have annotated his comment with a "but nobody is supposed to see them" comment.

[malaise]

14. This is HUGE

Damn!!

ITTMF!

[ScratchCat]

18. Oh, and one more thing

If the material was given to people from another country, and Trump lies and tells the lawyer he didn't, then that's one more thing for Trump to be blackmailed over and a simple releasing of the data by that country proves Trump lied to the court(by proxy).

[OnDoutside]

21. To ask that question, does the judge already have an idea of the answer ?

[DrToast]

22. It's very interesting the Judge asked it, yes!

[StarfishSaver]

23. I wondered that myself. It was a really odd question

She didn't ask if it's been shared with anyone else but asked specifically if it's been shared with a foreign government. Strange.

[Nevilledog]

24. How did that question come up, right?

Seems totally outside the issue being argued. What made her ask?

[BumRushDaShow]

37. Remember that the Grand Juries there

(and one in VA) dealt with Manafort stuff and of course Manafort was neck deep in multiple countries. I believe it also covered the Roger Stone stuff, where his info was redacted because his trial is coming up next month.

The judge was the one managing the Mueller Grand Jury cases so I'm sure she's seen some wild things over the past 2 years as that whole affair was a doozy with Russian defendants as well.

[Nevilledog]

49. Wish we knew what she knew!

[BumRushDaShow]

56. Honestly? I wouldn't want to be her!

That's just too much!!!!!!

[StarfishSaver]

58. I was just thinking the same thing.

Wouldn't want to know everything she knows.

[MadLinguist]

26. First question that jumped to my mind too!

The follow up question needs to be 'where's the audit log of persons accessing the material?' Then each of those persons need to be questioned. This judge is is amazing

[OnDoutside]

31. That would be nice !!!

[VMA131Marine]

32. Oh, lookee here!

The DOJ lawyer arguing this case is nominated to be a judge in the Superior Court of DC

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/116th-congress/798

Description
Elizabeth J. Shapiro, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice Lee F. Satterfield, term expired.

Organization
The Judiciary

Latest Action
05/23/2019 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Date Received from President
05/23/2019

Committee
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Bio

Elizabeth J. Shapiro
Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Esq. is a Deputy Director in the Civil Division of United States Department of Justice, Federal Programs Branch. She has served in the Department of Justice since 1991, defending the government against a wide variety of constitutional and statutory challenges. In 2001, Ms. Shapiro was named to the Civil Division's Terrorism Task Force, and she served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of Texas prosecuting a major national security case. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Ms. Shapiro litigated appellate cases in the Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Labor. Ms. Shapiro is regarded as an expert in the area of government information and privileges, and she regularly teaches classes throughout the country. She has received numerous awards throughout her career, including two Attorney General Awards, and she was elected to membership in the American Law Institute.

Ms. Shapiro received her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan, Phi Beta Kappa, and her law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center. Following law school, she clerked for the Honorable Stephen F. Eilperin of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

[sprinkleeninow]

48. All in cahoots. eom

[bucolic_frolic]

33. No pulling the wool over that judge's eyes

Remarkable question, and truly, because the information is so sacrosanct, I doubt the lawyer anticipated it or thought to confirm it beforehand. So he played it safe in answering the way he did.

I for one will be convinced this to be a problem if they find it was shared somewhere. Wait for their answer.

[ffr]

38. Foriegn governments, aka the co-conspiring country that aided tRump? Certanly.

I'm sure it has scanned in and sent via Kushner's back-channel server.

[lettucebe]

40. If I was the lawyer unless I knew specifically the answer

I'd say the same thing. We'll check and get back to you. No way you want to say yes or no to anything unless you KNOW the facts.

[Iliyah]

51. The lawyer should have been better prepared . . .

Now this leads to more questions.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

55. OT: what does google.com have to do with cnbc.com?

[StarfishSaver]

57. It's a CNBC story

It's right there in the link. The "google" appears in the link because I googled the story and that's how the link appears. But if you click on the link, it goes straight to CNBC.

Here's a direct link to the same story. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/08/justice-department-objects-to-house-getting-mueller-grand-jury-info.html

[Hermit-The-Prog]

59. if you click the OP link it goes to google which then goes to cnbc

Thanks for the direct link. I don't feed google any more than I have to, and I sure don't want them acting as gateway.