Althouse: "The Supreme Court blocked Congress from receiving grand-jury materials from Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election."

May 20, 2020

"The Supreme Court blocked Congress from receiving grand-jury materials from Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election."

"The court, in a written order Wednesday, granted an emergency request by the Trump administration to keep the materials secret while it mounts a full high court appeal against their release. The high court’s action increases the chances that the information will remain shielded through the 2020 election.... The Justice Department argued that disclosure of the grand-jury materials would mean its secrecy would be irretrievably lost. For the grand-jury process to work, secrecy must be assured for witnesses to come forward and testify fully, the department said. It also said the committee hadn’t shown that the material was urgently needed 'for a hypothetical second impeachment.'"

The Wall Street Journal reports (without a paywall).

77 comments:

Achilles said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/20/20, 3:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: Does this mean the Supreme Court has become Russian Agents too?; 5/20/20, 3:50 PM
Jersey Fled said...: A hypothetical second impeachment?

For what?

They didn't even have grounds for the first one.; 5/20/20, 3:55 PM
Achilles said...: A Grand Jury that was opened based on a completely debunked fraud of Russian Collusion.

The democrats want to attack their enemies and will do anything to get power.

Biden is on tape doing exactly what they impeached Trump for and they call it a "nothing burger."

Democrats are all completely amoral people.; 5/20/20, 3:57 PM
n.n said...: Democrats are the hunters and judges of historic times.; 5/20/20, 4:00 PM
mikee said...: That hypothetical second impeachment will now require as its basis Trump's actions during the runup to the Coronavirus pandemic. Good luck with that. You don't get to "stopping air travel from source country" until page 46 of Obama's pandemic playbook, several chapters after ensuring things like local, state, and federal agencies being in complete agreement about how to share data between themselves and all other stakeholders like NGOs and foreign equivalents. Thank God Trump didn't use the playbook!; 5/20/20, 4:01 PM
Temujin said...: The Democrats should lose the House. They don't deserve to hold those offices. They are an insult to this country.; 5/20/20, 4:08 PM
Robert Cook said...: I've never believed there was much or anything to the alleged "Russian Collusion," seeing it primarily (at first) as a means for Hillary and the Democrats to excuse and explain away their humiliating loss to Donald Trump. It took on steam from there as a time-wasting tool for the Democrats to try to force Trump out of office, rather than their spending these past few years trying to oppose Trump as they're supposed to, through legislative successes barring his initiatives.

All the above aside, I wonder why and how anything involving the POTUS can be considered so secret that not even Congress can know it and see it. How else can Congress hold the President answerable to them--meaning, to we, the people, if they cannot subpoena documents that may reveal wrong doing by the Executive?; 5/20/20, 4:12 PM
MadisonMan said...: Wait -- what? The Democrats want to mount a *second* Impeachment trial? Are they Insane?; 5/20/20, 4:17 PM
Ray - SoCal said...: Good, hopefully this will prevent an impeachment 2.0 for a while.; 5/20/20, 4:17 PM
Kevin said...: And I was so looking forward to Inga’s post that Trump’s time had come and the jig was finally up.; 5/20/20, 4:19 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: The Dems are down to only a handful of remaining hoaxes!

Maybe, to spark interest in his campaign. Biden will come out as our first gay Septuagenarian presidential candidate.; 5/20/20, 4:28 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Wait, are people actually really pushing for a second impeachment?; 5/20/20, 4:35 PM
Leland said...: Ah Schiff, so much for that 2nd go at Impeachment.; 5/20/20, 4:39 PM
Inga said...: Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?; 5/20/20, 4:42 PM
Original Mike said...: Isn't it illegal to release Grand Jury material? Not that the democrats let little things like the law interfere with their seedy machinations.; 5/20/20, 4:48 PM
Jim Gust said...: No need for a second impeachment until Trump is re-elected.

Hopefully the Republicans retake the House, putting the issue to rest.; 5/20/20, 4:48 PM
Richard said...: Grand Jury testimony is secret in black and white, no? Non-lawyer asking; WTF?; 5/20/20, 4:48 PM
Rick said...: The Mueller report found sweeping Russian interference in the 2016 campaign

FantasyLand.

Russians paid ~100k for comically inept Facebook memes. The easiest way to identify bullshitters is to note the level of abstraction. Those who resort to generalizations and avoid specifics are trying to mislead.; 5/20/20, 4:49 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Now, if they can just string this out long enough, the Republicans can retake the House (by showing a lot of videos of Palsi, Schifty, Wadler, and AOC), they can withdraw the demand, mooting the case, and the Supreme Court won’t have to determine that breaching grand jury secrecy for partisan political advantage is or is not legitimate.

My theory is that this has been Plan B all along. Plan A was for the Mueller investigation to turn over all of their evidence, obtained in part through illegally acquired FISA warrants on Carter Page (remember, by the third renewal (since determined to have been illegally obtained by DOJ IG Horowitz) was obtained solely for the benefit of the Mueller investigation, since, by then, Crossfire Hurricane had been shut down), and very likely through illegal FISA 702 searching, that was shut down by NSA Dir Rogers when he discovered it in Spring of 2016. Maybe also through a lot of records requests to AT&T, Verizon, etc. upon request from House committees, after they took over the House (which cost tens of millions of dollars, and exposed a lot of their new methods of cheating). DAG Rosenstein wasn’t going to stand in their way - he had already been shown to have been compromised by appointing Mueller in the first place, and then expanding their mandate with reference to the Logan Act, FARA, and §1001 perjury traps. Legally he would have had to approve transfer of that Executive Branch material to the Legislative Branch. But very likely would have.

But Trump and the Republicans moved more quickly in early 2018. They rushed Barr’s confirmation as AG through the Senate, and not being recused, as Sessions had been, took over supervision of Mueller and his rabidly partisan henchmen. At that point, Schifty and Wadler were going to get zip from the Executive Branch. And that included all of the material from Mueller’s investigation that they had been expecting to use for impeachment. Whoops.

So, what the Mueller prosecutors did was to run all of the juicy stuff through grand juries. Not because the grand juries were ever expected to do anything with it, but to get it on the record there. I expect that some clever Lawfare associated attorney saw this possible exception to the grand jury secrecy rules, and figured, with the right judges (which they found), they could drive a truck through the very narrow exception the potentially found.; 5/20/20, 4:50 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: Well it's a damned good thing the House doesn't have anything important to do, or it wouldn't have time to beat this dead horse.; 5/20/20, 4:53 PM
cubanbob said...: If I am not mistaken wasn't the prosecutor conducting the grand jury one of Mueller's prosecutors? If that is the case then what is the predicate for unsealing the records? Mueller already found nothing to charge and the senate acquitted. The demented Democrats want another bite of the same apple.; 5/20/20, 4:58 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Schiff Pelosi and Co grabbing at straws--and the straw has been pulled away--at least for a while.; 5/20/20, 4:58 PM
phantommut said...: So, less that 6 months until the General Election, and the Democrats want a do-over on Impeachment. So much bad karma.
* Trump's approval rating went up during Impeachment 1.
* How does a second try with Biden running reflect on confidence in Biden?
* More fuel for Trump's "Drain the Swamp!" rhetoric.
* Durham's report is coming. Best not to throw that sh*t show in sharp relief.
* Nothing in the world would drive turnout for Trump like another impeachment.

Of course, keeping the news cycle for focusing on Biden may be the play itself; I don't know if you can become President by running as the Invisible Man, but that may be the hope of the Democrats.; 5/20/20, 5:00 PM
Wince said...: In the words of Nelson Muntz: "HA! HA!"; 5/20/20, 5:08 PM
Swede said...: What's the definition of insanity again?

The House forgot.; 5/20/20, 5:19 PM
Francisco D said...: Pelosi and Schiff already know the allegations made against Trump to the Grand Jury because it was leaked to them.

The "seriousness" of the charges made to the GJ will require another Impeachment Inquisition, I mean Inquiry.

SCOTUS did not play along. I am guessing that the serious charges during Kavanaugh Inquisition may have influenced them.; 5/20/20, 5:22 PM
Josephbleau said...: It must be horrible for the Democrats to have worked so hard to get Muller his millions from the taxpayers to create the Steele Dossier II only to not get to use it for campaign adds. I assume if anything was there it would have been leaked.; 5/20/20, 5:26 PM
Spiros said...: Why? No criminal charges were filed against Trump or his associates for conspiring directly with Russia or Wikileaks.; 5/20/20, 5:31 PM
mesquito said...: We believe Trump abused his power, and there is no power we won’t abuse to prove it.; 5/20/20, 5:38 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "There were no dissents noted in Wednesday’s order."
Good Lord! The Russki's have even gotten to Ginsberg!; 5/20/20, 5:47 PM
Drago said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/20/20, 5:53 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "Does this mean the Supreme Court has become Russian Agents too?"

Yes, yes it does. Schitt and Wadler just need to whisper in John Roberts' ear that he is in the dossier, too.; 5/20/20, 5:53 PM
Gk1 said...: Best news is the virus must be behind us as the democrats are ginning up this loser of an issue (again). Are the democrats that bereft of new ideas?; 5/20/20, 6:03 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Impeach him for some other made up BS.; 5/20/20, 6:17 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Inga misses the point of a Grand Jury.; 5/20/20, 6:22 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Inga still keeping her hope alive. The real proof that Trump is a real Russian asset is still there! really.

Just like Jill Stein. Another Russian asset.

(Please ignore the Obama administration's dealings with Russia and all the money that poured into Clinton Foundation coffers -from RUSSIA - while she was head of the State Dept.); 5/20/20, 6:26 PM
hombre said...: Foolish of Barr to suggest that Obama and Biden are not likely to be prosecuted. As the 50 or 60 never-ending investigations of Trump make clear, he will receive no such consideration from Corruptocrats.; 5/20/20, 6:29 PM
Drago said...: Oh no! Sham-peachment I (Nobody Knows What Mueller Knows!) / IV ("Son of Mueller" - Grand Jury info) is now on the back burner until Jan 2021.

Back to Sham-peachment III (Trump Caused the Virus and Killed The World) using ChiCom virus lies.

However, now that the audio of Joe Biden's clearly corrupt abuse of power in Ukraine has surfaced maybe the dems can resurrect Sham-peachment II (Ukraine boogaloo) into Sham-peachment V (Ukraine boogaloo-Audio Edition).; 5/20/20, 6:34 PM
Francisco D said...: Inga said ... Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?

Just a wild guess, but they are afraid of another circus like the Kavanaugh Inquisition or Shampeachment.

Your people have absolutely no honor. There used to be Democrats that I respected - not anymore.; 5/20/20, 6:35 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Let's see where we are with the Dems:

1. Logan Act violations - a hoax
2. The Steele Dossier - a hoax
3. Claims of Russian collusion by Trump campaign -a hoax
4. Claim that Flynn was Russian agent - a hoax
5. Claim that Carter Page was Russian agent - a hoax

To put it mildly, these nudniks don't inspire a high degree of confidence in the veracity of their assertions.....; 5/20/20, 6:40 PM
rcocean said...: The SCOTUS blocked Pelosi and the Democrats. Again, if this had been the R's and obama, the press headline would've been: "SCOTUS blocks Republublican bid to see Obama's Grand jury records". Notice in OBamagate, the press covers it as "Republicans attack Obama for..." whereas when its an Republican, its "Questions abound about Bush's role in..."; 5/20/20, 6:52 PM
rcocean said...: Trump said Pelosi had mental problems and I think he's right. Its not just Trump rhetoric, Nancy is bonkers. That no one cares, means the USA is going to be in big trouble in a few years. Because if trump doesn't lose in 2020, the Republicans will probably lose in 2024.; 5/20/20, 6:54 PM
rcocean said...: Surprised there was no dissent from the 4 liberals.; 5/20/20, 6:54 PM
Inga said...: “The court’s action on the grand-jury materials isn’t a final ruling and came without full briefing or oral argument. The justices said the administration must file its full petition for Supreme Court review by June 1. There were no dissents noted in Wednesday’s order. The court’s announcement was unsigned, as is its custom for emergency orders.

If the court decides in June that it doesn’t want to hear the case at all, the order it issued Wednesday would terminate, and Congress would receive the records.”; 5/20/20, 6:55 PM
n.n said...: Biden will come out as our first gay Septuagenarian presidential candidate

Transgender, and, perhaps, transvestite, too. Probably not. Decaffeinated Joe is known to prefer girls, not boys a la trans/homo priests, scout leaders, and some Hollywood actors.; 5/20/20, 7:00 PM
Clark said...: This seems to me like a tempest in a teapot. I would read Rule 6 (of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) as requiring that this testimony remain secret. If Congress wants to change the rule they can change the rule. If they can't get a rule change enacted then they can't get it enacted.; 5/20/20, 7:31 PM
Original Mike said...: Blogger Inga said..."Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?"

Nobody knows what Mueller knows!; 5/20/20, 7:45 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?"

This is for Inga The Helpless (who could have answered her own moronic question but didnt because....moron):

"Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[16] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979).[17][18] The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart but concurred with the Court's opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell found that "if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily"; "witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly"; and "there also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors". Further, "persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury [should] not be held up to public ridicule".[17]; 5/20/20, 8:26 PM
gilbar said...: "Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?"

WHY is it, that igna REFUSES to release her social security and credit card numbers to us?
WHAT IS SHE AFRAID OFF?; 5/20/20, 8:28 PM
Pookie Number 2 said...: Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?

Why did you post this without your full name, address, phone number, and tax returns?; 5/20/20, 8:58 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: "Nobody knows what Mueller knows!"

At his sworn Congressional testimony, even Mueller didn't know what he knew!; 5/20/20, 9:21 PM
Mattman26 said...: Also, hearsay testimony is permissible in grand jury proceedings, so you’d get a lot of “I heard from this guy that he heard from...,” which would just get the press frothing at the mouth again.; 5/20/20, 9:27 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Shorter Maddow Inga Hillary

Mueller was fooled... tricked! or- Mueller jsut didn't get to the bottom of it! the truth is still out there!; 5/20/20, 9:34 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Inga rolls out the corrupt hack press meme.

What is Trump hiding!; 5/20/20, 9:37 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?

Because the people who testified were promised anonymity.

Because the people who were accused still have due process rights.

Because the whole thing is a sham and the only purposes served by violating those promises is to attack people who are presumed innocent and were proven innocent.

You are just a piece of shit.; 5/20/20, 9:44 PM
walter said...: "even Mueller didn't know what he knew!"
Probably at least in part an act. He seemed to have it together when he needed to.; 5/20/20, 9:46 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
“The court’s action on the grand-jury materials isn’t a final ruling and came without full briefing or oral argument. The justices said the administration must file its full petition for Supreme Court review by June 1. There were no dissents noted in Wednesday’s order. The court’s announcement was unsigned, as is its custom for emergency orders.

If the court decides in June that it doesn’t want to hear the case at all, the order it issued Wednesday would terminate, and Congress would receive the records.”

There have been multiple recordings of Biden released doing exactly what Trump was impeached for.

I believe you called it a "nothing burger."; 5/20/20, 9:46 PM
Original Mike said...: "At his sworn Congressional testimony, even Mueller didn't know what he knew! "

Yeah. How 'bout that?; 5/20/20, 9:57 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger Inga said..."Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?"

Inga is the perfect one to ask this question. Absolute ignorance,; 5/20/20, 9:57 PM
Drago said...: Mattman26: "Also, hearsay testimony is permissible in grand jury proceedings, so you’d get a lot of “I heard from this guy that he heard from...,” which would just get the press frothing at the mouth again."

And that is precisely what Weissmann and his henchmen did with the Grand Jury. They called everybody under the sun and those people got to say whatever they wanted with no pushback and all of that gossip and untested rumor mongering would suddenly be made to appear as if it were all the truest of the true things and it would all immediately leak from the dems to the media.

Of course, we know the Mueller henchmen and their pals have already fed all the grand jury BS to the dems but the dems know better than to start launching that stuff into the media without the cover of the GJ testimony handed to them formally and then spread around to about a thousand people so no leaks could ever be tracked down....not that Christopher Wray would do anything about it anyway.; 5/20/20, 10:13 PM
Terry Ott said...: Inga sincerly wants to know: "Why does the Trump Administration want so badly to keep the grand jury materials a secret? What are they afraid of?”

We need to help educate our fellow citizens where/if we can, so I will try to do that.

Dearest Inga, perhaps the Trump Administration would prefer NOT to be accused of sitting silent while a basic tenet of our legal system, formalized in the law, is discarded. Of course, it’s not likely that the Supremes would agree to do it regardless, but it doesn’t hurt to remind the court that, as the elder Bush would say, “It wouldn’t be prudent."

My advice would be to ask your Congressperson to introduce legislation that would make all grand jury materials publicly available. and required to be mailed out to each individual across the US. Yeah, that’s the ticket.; 5/21/20, 3:30 AM
Rusty said...: Coole @ 4:20
Because the executive isn't answerable to the legislative. I would have thought the recent impeachment would have shown you that.; 5/21/20, 5:55 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Inga,
They are afraid of precedence, and the impact on future administrations. Not surprising that an Obama-worshiper wouldn't understand that.; 5/21/20, 6:12 AM
iowan2 said...: And that is precisely what Weissmann and his henchmen did with the Grand Jury. They called everybody under the sun and those people got to say whatever they wanted with no pushback and all of that gossip and untested rumor mongering would suddenly be made to appear as if it were all the truest of the true things and it would all immediately leak from the dems to the media.

Absolutely. We know the Grand Jury did not reveal evidence of a single prosecutable event. Mueller, (Weisseman) as elastic as he was with the law, could not bring himself, to indict a single person. Why you ask? Because unlike the indictments of Russia actors, an indictment of a person under the Jurisdiction of the United States, would have that indictment tested in the courts. Weisseman, as slimy as he is, had no desire to defend his work in front of a judge (see General Flynn). As of now, all of the work Weisseman did, produced zero criminal referals with a Russia connection.

The evidence shows grandjury testimony that would only serve as propaganda for the Democrats. Not evidence of crimes.; 5/21/20, 6:54 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “The evidence shows grandjury testimony that would only serve as propaganda for the Democrats. Not evidence of crimes.”

You are forgetting the obvious - impeachment. Trump has already been impeached once for non crimes, for nothing that Predecessors hadn’t been doing for decades, if not centuries. And the House Dems, pushing this lawsuit, admit that that is their aim.

I think that I might defend against them by pointing out that they impeached Trump already by making up a lot of BS, so why do they need the GJ testimony that doesn’t show any crimes? If they want to impeach him again before the election, then go ahead. Not going to be any different this time. Still won’t be based on having proven a high crime or misdemeanor, is likely to pass the House again, but with a couple fewer votes (due to the pending election), and then see short shrift in the Senate.; 5/21/20, 8:08 AM
brylun said...: "There were no dissents noted in Wednesday’s order."

I'm betting it was 5-4, and the dissents weren't noted. There just isn't any rule of law with Democrats any more as they ruthlessly lust for power.; 5/21/20, 8:51 AM
Greg the class traitor said...: 1: Was there Russian collusion with a Presidential campaign in order. to affect the 2016 election? Of course there was.

The Clinton campaign clearly colluded with the Russians to spread the disinformation Putin's agents sent to Steele. Sent in order to get Putin's preferred candidate, anti-fracker Hillary Clinton, elected president.

You want to investigate her campaign? Go right ahead.

2: I love Cookie's latest story line. But it doesn't work. Anything legitimate that the Mueller campaign, I mean "investigation", found, Congress can do their own investigation, and find it, too.

What Congress does not, and should not, have access to is the work product of a Grand Jury, when the jury has decided not to indict.

I realize that being a Democrat means being a power mad monster willing to destroy every standard and norm in the pursuit of power. Tough. Grand Jury testimony os, by long standing tradition and law, NOT available to corrupt scandal mongers.

Get over it; 5/21/20, 9:32 AM
Greg the class traitor said...: Inga said...
“The court’s action on the grand-jury materials isn’t a final ruling and came without full briefing or oral argument. The justices said the administration must file its full petition for Supreme Court review by June 1. There were no dissents noted in Wednesday’s order. The court’s announcement was unsigned, as is its custom for emergency orders.

If the court decides in June that it doesn’t want to hear the case at all, the order it issued Wednesday would terminate, and Congress would receive the records.”

You keep f'ing the chicken, Inga!

The Court is quite capable of ruling against the lower courts' orders without any hearing, and throwing them out.

What is entirely unlikely is that the Court would ALLOW the GJ testimony to be released to Congress w/o a hearing.; 5/21/20, 9:45 AM
Gk1 said...: I can't wait to read what Jonathan Turley thinks about the Supremes upholding judicial norms. This is what he said about the media's disinterest in the latest disclosure on Susan Rice's unmasking attempts.

"The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation," Turley wrote. "Yet none of this matters. A Democratic administration using a secret court to investigate the opposing political campaign does not matter to many in Congress or in the media anyway. An investigation continuing despite the lack of credible information supporting collusion does not matter to them either. A president and a vice president who take personal interest in the surveillance of their political opponents also does not matter."; 5/21/20, 9:53 AM
Douglas B. Levene said...: What I find most amusing in all this is that the Democrats seem to believe, deep in their hearts, that there is some secret buried in the grand jury materials that will finally, definitely, lead to the removal of Trump from the presidency. That's why they are so invested in this. Is this a rational belief? Uh, no. But it's pervasive.; 5/21/20, 11:09 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I love Cookie's latest story line. But it doesn't work. Anything legitimate that the Mueller campaign, I mean 'investigation,' found, Congress can do their own investigation, and find it, too."

What "story line"? I'm not talking about Trump or the mythical "Russiagate." I'm asking a general question about a general principle. The POTUS is answerable to the people, and Congress is the means by which the people can investigate POTUS for possible wrongdoing. How can we discover that our chief executive--whomever he or she may be at a given time--may be guilty of malfeasance in office if we cannot compel release of all pertinent documents that might shed light on his or her potential culpability?; 5/21/20, 1:08 PM
Greg the class traitor said...: 1: The "story line" that you never believed in the Russian collusion BS, and are just an interested and honest observer

2: You favor forcing the Executive Branch to release all pertinent documents to a Congressional investigation? Gee, I guess that means you vociferously attacked the Obama Admin for their "Fast and Furious" coverups?

3: Grand Jury testimony does NOT consist of "pertinent documents". It consists f hearsay and other such garbage.

Anything legitimate revealed to the Mueller scam can equally be obtained by a Congressional Investigation. One where the witnesses are under oath, and can be challenged when they try to play games.

You want the GJ "testimony" released BECAUSE it was just as dishonest as all those Democrats going on MSNBC, making claims they denied when they were put under oath and testifying before Congress. Because the Mueller scam artists were and are just as dishonest and the MSNBC interviewers; 5/21/20, 3:02 PM
nono said...: At this time there is no impeachment investigation.
For congress to get grand jury testimony:
* Vote on a articles of impeachment.
* Vote on rules for the impeachment.; 5/21/20, 3:05 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: @Mr. Cook: Congress can investigate whatever it wants, and can subpoena documents and witnesses, and go to court to enforce those subpoenas. The courts will either enforce them or not, depending on the the existence of privilege claims and other defenses. If the courts won't enforce them, congress can use the power of the purse or other political means to force compliance, although there would be a high cost to doing so if the courts have held the subpoena to be improper.

If Congress really thinks it needs grand jury materials, it can amend the grand jury secrecy rules to give it the right to see them. This is wholly within Congress's powers. It could even change the law over the president's veto if there were sufficient votes. I note here that at no time in the past 30 years, so far as I can recall, have the Democrats ever even suggested changing the law to give Congress access to grand jury materials. One might conclude that this is Trump-only change that they want.; 5/21/20, 3:47 PM
Terry Ott said...: Douglas: If Congress does introduce such an amendment, the proposed language should be taken onto the floor enclosed in a box owned by Pandora.; 5/21/20, 5:53 PM
JAORE said...: Supreme Court Rules:

No Fishing Expeditions until a vaccine found for Covid-19.; 5/22/20, 6:44 AM