Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Adam Schiff also doesn't understand why Garland refuses to indict [View all]bigtree
(94,341 posts)51. no, this is why
1-7.001 - Purpose
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy (the Policy) applies to all DOJ personnel, including employees, contractors, detailees, and task force partners.
The Policy governs the protection and release of information that DOJ personnel obtain in the course of their work, and it balances four primary interests: (1) an individuals right to a fair trial or adjudicative proceeding; (2) an individuals interest in privacy; (3) the governments ability to administer justice and promote public safety; and (4) the right of the public to have access to information about the Department of Justice.
The Policy provides internal guidance only and does not create any rights enforceable in law or otherwise. DOJ components may promulgate more specific policies, consistent with and subject to this Policy.
7.100 General Need for Confidentiality
Much of DOJs work involves non-public, sensitive matters. Disseminating non-public, sensitive information about DOJ matters could violate federal laws, employee non-disclosure agreements, and individual privacy rights; put a witness or law enforcement officer in danger; jeopardize an investigation or case; prejudice the rights of a defendant; or unfairly damage the reputation of a person.
DOJ personnel should presume that non-public, sensitive information obtained in connection with work is protected from disclosure, except as needed to fulfill official duties of DOJ personnel, and as allowed by court order, statutory or regulatory prescription, or case law and rules governing criminal and civil discovery. Other than as necessary to fulfill DOJ official duties, disclosure of such information to anyone, including to family members, friends, or even colleagues, is prohibited and could lead to disciplinary action. Unauthorized disclosures of sensitive personal or proprietary information could lead to criminal prosecution or administrative action.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-1-7000-media-relations#1-7.111
(nothing in there about exceptions for sharing information about their ongoing investigations and prosecutions with congressmen)
I used this symbol (/s) in the other post to indicate sarcasm.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy (the Policy) applies to all DOJ personnel, including employees, contractors, detailees, and task force partners.
The Policy governs the protection and release of information that DOJ personnel obtain in the course of their work, and it balances four primary interests: (1) an individuals right to a fair trial or adjudicative proceeding; (2) an individuals interest in privacy; (3) the governments ability to administer justice and promote public safety; and (4) the right of the public to have access to information about the Department of Justice.
The Policy provides internal guidance only and does not create any rights enforceable in law or otherwise. DOJ components may promulgate more specific policies, consistent with and subject to this Policy.
7.100 General Need for Confidentiality
Much of DOJs work involves non-public, sensitive matters. Disseminating non-public, sensitive information about DOJ matters could violate federal laws, employee non-disclosure agreements, and individual privacy rights; put a witness or law enforcement officer in danger; jeopardize an investigation or case; prejudice the rights of a defendant; or unfairly damage the reputation of a person.
DOJ personnel should presume that non-public, sensitive information obtained in connection with work is protected from disclosure, except as needed to fulfill official duties of DOJ personnel, and as allowed by court order, statutory or regulatory prescription, or case law and rules governing criminal and civil discovery. Other than as necessary to fulfill DOJ official duties, disclosure of such information to anyone, including to family members, friends, or even colleagues, is prohibited and could lead to disciplinary action. Unauthorized disclosures of sensitive personal or proprietary information could lead to criminal prosecution or administrative action.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-1-7000-media-relations#1-7.111
(nothing in there about exceptions for sharing information about their ongoing investigations and prosecutions with congressmen)
I used this symbol (/s) in the other post to indicate sarcasm.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes. Those year-and-a-half long episodes of Law & Order must be on channels I don't get.
Scrivener7
Jun 2022
#35
What does Adam Schiff know, he has no clue what's going on. Why does he hate Democrats?
Autumn
Jun 2022
#8
he knows DOJ shares details and explanations about their investigations with individual congressmen
bigtree
Jun 2022
#22
So why would a former prosecutor, one who has served as a U.S. representative since 2001
Autumn
Jun 2022
#54
He also works to protect the American people and our democracy. For the last 21 years.
Autumn
Jun 2022
#56
I am sure there will be a number of DUers calling his office to set him straight.
Gore1FL
Jun 2022
#11
you mean people outside of that investigation griping about things they can't possibly know about?
bigtree
Jun 2022
#19
the info both Schiff and DOJ want is likely to be denied in any contempt proceeding
bigtree
Jun 2022
#46