Justice Department seeks 50-year bar to release of grand jury material

[demmiblue]

Source: WaPo

The Justice Department is pushing for rule changes that would put a 50-year delay on when courts can consider releasing material from federal grand juries, according to documents and interviews, and would separately allow gag orders to be applied more broadly to witnesses.

While the recommendations were made during the Trump administration, President Biden’s Justice Department is still seeking the changes, even as critics oppose what they say would be a significant expansion of secrecy around federal courts and investigations.

Grand jury secrecy is a cornerstone of American criminal justice. Much of what is said in grand juries — where citizens, guided by a prosecutor, consider whether to indict someone for alleged crimes — is never made public.

But judges occasionally rule that some other interest merits the release of grand jury information.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/grand-jury-secrecy-gag-orders/2021/07/19/22585580-e898-11eb-8950-d73b3e93ff7f_story.html

[The Magistrate]

1. Can Someone Remind Me, Ma'am, Why Mr. Garland Heads The Justice Department?

[hlthe2b]

2. Sadly, I am wondering this too.

[Lonestarblue]

8. I am becoming disillusioned with Garland.

I was disappointed that he continued the DOJ defense of Trump in the Jean Carroll lawsuit. He has sought to maintain secrecy and seemingly less accountability for the DOJ. There has been no indication that the DOJ is investigating the planners and funders of the January 6 insurrection, so probably those people will face no consequences. He has failed to do anything about Trump’s obstruction of justice laid out by Mueller. It’s as if he just doesn’t want to be bothered by anything related to Trump—perhaps understandable but shortsighted in my opinion. Lack of accountability just encourages future bad actors to even worse acts.

Nor has he done mucch about enforcing laws that require states to protect voting records. Arizona officials broke the law in handing over ballots for an unofficial audit. Crickets from the DOJ other than a letter. Garland seems too conservative for the times we like be in.

[Orangeutan]

21. Sally Yates would have been my choice.

[mpcamb]

22. This sounds like good news for corrupt grand jurors everywhere.

[SledDriver]

3. Merrick Garland's DOJ is protecting the Trump administration.

[The Magistrate]

5. I Expect Someone Will Alert On This, Sir

And if I were on the jury it wouldn't take more than a glance to hit the 'clearly breaks the rule' button.

Best to self-delete and save embarrassment....

[Evolve Dammit]

24. Only conclusion I can draw. Just like O protecting W. It's BS for any substantive accountability. nt

[lagomorph777]

32. This is getting really ridiculous.

Fire that asshole and put somebody better in there.

[Captain Zero]

34. oh it only appears that way

Deep Justice Chess in progress.

[marble falls]

6. Big. Fucking. Mistake.

[bluestarone]

7. I'm really surprised about this

Seems like we just come together on everything!

[malthaussen]

9. Hey, people are living longer, they need their asses covered longer.

Heaven forfend that any of their contemporaries might get to know what assholes they really were.

-- Mal

[Renew Deal]

13. Sometimes the simplest answer makes the most sense.

And I think this is one of those cases. Why are they doing this? Because they want secret material to stay secret. And to protect witnesses and jurors.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

17. My first assumption...

... upon reading the first paragraph. As you can see, from the first three letters... This can work both ways.

Precedent is all over the place in U.S. of A. law. Best to be too protective than not protective enough in this situation. If there is a glaring need to know, there will be a judge to look at the issue/information/persons involved.

[dsc]

10. To be fair this apparently dates back to Obama

Holder proposed a similar change but 30 years as opposed to 50. That said, I am not happy with either one given what happened with the Mueller investigation. The Impeachment committee had every right to that info and should have gotten it the day Mueller decided he wasn't charging any other people.

[getagrip_already]

11. well, they have one point.. is it good enough though?

They are surely claiming that the 50 year rule will encourage witnesses to be fully truthful, without having to worry that the release of their testimony will lead to retribution.

But of course, those same witnesses could be called as witnesses in trial, so there may not be much to that.

[flying_wahini]

12. What a crock of BS.

Can Biden do Anything about it IF he wanted to?

[Justice matters.]

33. Other than firing Garland for good reasons? No. (n/t)

[The Mouth]

14. All of that stuff should be online within minutes.

Secrets are not good and NOTHING should be unavailable to all except for individual health information and military intelligence that is less than 5 years old.

We should allow the government to classify no more information than will fit on one side of a 8.5x11 piece of paper in 12 point type.

And *everything* should be declassified after 5 years. Online, indexed, cross referenced. If we taxpayers paid for it to be created or gathered we taxpayers should be able to access it.

Everything should be public. Every last thing should be debated in the public square except the names of secret agents actually serving and the precise capabilities of currently deployed military gear.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. Nonsense on so many levels

Your proposal is ridiculous.

1) Grand Jury secrecy encourages people to talk to grand juries without invoking Fifth and other roadblocks, and thus gains more prosecutions and convictions.

2) Many military secrets have long term benefits. At the very least you would force the US military to completely change around operations and supply lines and basing and porting every five years.

3) Many intelligence operations take longer than 5 years.

So many other considerations.

23) You would hand the Russians and the Chinese spy satellite technology for free.

You say all the secrets should fit on a sheet of paper and then you contradict yourself about names and precise capabilities of military gear. But not underlying technology or places or operations or locals helping.

Please don't waste anyone's time with such nonsense. It goes on and on and clearly you have given this almost no thought at all.

[gab13by13]

15. Reminds me of what went on back in the 60's

when a rich boy got in trouble, it never made the local newspaper. This is just the same thing on a bigger scale.

WTF Garland, just say NO.

[Evolve Dammit]

25. great analogy

[Jimvanhise]

16. VIETNAM 50 YEARS LATER

During the George W. Bush administration they started to release the 2,000 pages of documents about war crimes committed by American soldiers in Vietnam and those who were dishonorably discharged because of it. But when the Bush administration realized this was happening they classified the documents and prevented them from being released to the press.

[stillcool]

18. I can understand protecting witnesses

which this seems to be about? That said, I would not expect this government to protect my identity, regardless of any rule.

[Warpy]

19. Oh, please, 20 years is sufficient to protect bureaucrats

from embarrassment. They don't have to be dead, just out of power.

Gag orders are unconstitutional.

[LiberalFighter]

20. An agency rule is not the same as a law.

Meaning the courts can ignore it.

[mpcamb]

27. It seems like it will still matter if anyone wants to use it as precedent.

I think it sticks to high heaven and would shield, obfuscate and protect all the worst people.
It spits in the face of those who want open gov't and transparency.

[choie]

29. You mean like the OLC's finding that

presidents can't be indicted during their presidency? How many courts disregarded that "rule"?

[Devil Child]

23. Very unwelcome news

[Evolve Dammit]

26. This really sucks. Very disappointed we would be protecting criminals. Expected much better

[Harker]

30. The only possible good I can see is that some witnesses

who might otherwise remain silent and innocents who come under scrutiny will have greater protection from retribution.

On the whole, though, it likely does society more harm than good, I think.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. Exactly. There are also other reasons along those lines. . . . . nt

[Historic NY]

31. All witness's are not criminals

some risk life and limb to come forward in many cases. In fact, impaneled grand juries can sit up to 36 months I'm sure in high profile investigations they would like that info kept secret.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. I think you mean "Not all witnesses are criminals", because some witnesses are criminals. . . nt