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

Latest Breaking News

getagrip_already

(17,802 posts)

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

Reply to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jul 20, 2021, 10:36 AM

Jul 2021

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Justice Department seeks 50-year bar to release of grand jury material [View all] demmiblue Jul 2021 OP

Can Someone Remind Me, Ma'am, Why Mr. Garland Heads The Justice Department? The Magistrate Jul 2021 #1

Sadly, I am wondering this too. hlthe2b Jul 2021 #2

I am becoming disillusioned with Garland. Lonestarblue Jul 2021 #8

Sally Yates would have been my choice. Orangeutan Jul 2021 #21

This sounds like good news for corrupt grand jurors everywhere. mpcamb Jul 2021 #22

Merrick Garland's DOJ is protecting the Trump administration. SledDriver Jul 2021 #3

Post removed Post removed Jul 2021 #4

I Expect Someone Will Alert On This, Sir The Magistrate Jul 2021 #5

Only conclusion I can draw. Just like O protecting W. It's BS for any substantive accountability. nt Evolve Dammit Jul 2021 #24

This is getting really ridiculous. lagomorph777 Jul 2021 #32

oh it only appears that way Captain Zero Jul 2021 #34

Big. Fucking. Mistake. marble falls Jul 2021 #6

I'm really surprised about this bluestarone Jul 2021 #7

Hey, people are living longer, they need their asses covered longer. malthaussen Jul 2021 #9

Sometimes the simplest answer makes the most sense. Renew Deal Jul 2021 #13

My first assumption... IthinkThereforeIAM Jul 2021 #17

To be fair this apparently dates back to Obama dsc Jul 2021 #10

well, they have one point.. is it good enough though? getagrip_already Jul 2021 #11

What a crock of BS. flying_wahini Jul 2021 #12

Other than firing Garland for good reasons? No. (n/t) Justice matters. Jul 2021 #33

All of that stuff should be online within minutes. The Mouth Jul 2021 #14

Nonsense on so many levels Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2021 #35

Reminds me of what went on back in the 60's gab13by13 Jul 2021 #15

great analogy Evolve Dammit Jul 2021 #25

VIETNAM 50 YEARS LATER Jimvanhise Jul 2021 #16

I can understand protecting witnesses stillcool Jul 2021 #18

Oh, please, 20 years is sufficient to protect bureaucrats Warpy Jul 2021 #19

An agency rule is not the same as a law. LiberalFighter Jul 2021 #20

It seems like it will still matter if anyone wants to use it as precedent. mpcamb Jul 2021 #27

You mean like the OLC's finding that choie Jul 2021 #29

Very unwelcome news Devil Child Jul 2021 #23

This really sucks. Very disappointed we would be protecting criminals. Expected much better Evolve Dammit Jul 2021 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author ExTex Jul 2021 #28

The only possible good I can see is that some witnesses Harker Jul 2021 #30

Exactly. There are also other reasons along those lines. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2021 #37

All witness's are not criminals Historic NY Jul 2021 #31

I think you mean "Not all witnesses are criminals", because some witnesses are criminals. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2021 #36