Justice Department and House intelligence panel strike deal for Mueller materials

Dec 2006
26,367
12,416
New Haven, CT
Breaking News: Wednesday/May 22/9:15am

Justice Department and House intelligence panel strike deal for Mueller materials

The House Intelligence Committee will not enforce a subpoena against Attorney General William P. Barr as planned Wednesday, after the Justice Department agreed at the 11th hour to produce the redacted material and underlying information from the special counsel’s report that the panel sought, albeit more slowly than it wanted.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the committee’s chairman, announced the deal in a statement Wednesday morning. He warned that the subpoena “will remain in effect and will be enforced should the Department fail to comply with the full document request.”

Schiff added that he expects the “initial production” of providing the committee with 12 categories of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence material from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of election interference by Russia would “be completed by the end of next week.”

In a letter Tuesday to Schiff, Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd wrote that “the Department is willing to move forward with efforts to accommodate the Committee’s legitimate interests” to view the items it requested. But he argued that the Justice Department would need more time to produce them. Boyd made the counteroffer contingent on the committee’s promise “that it will not pursue any vote on an ‘enforcement action,’ either on May 22, or while such good-faith accommodation measures continue.”

“To be clear should the Committee take the precipitous and unnecessary action of recommending a contempt finding or other enforcement action against the attorney general, then the Department will not likely be able to continue to work with the Committee to accommodate its interest in these materials,” Boyd wrote.

Schiff’s decision to hold off on enforcing the subpoena represents a rare moment of detente between House Democrats and Barr, who have been pitted against each other over access to the full substance of Mueller’s report and the administration’s efforts to keep witnesses from testifying in congressional investigations of President Trump’s campaign, his businesses and his foreign ties.

much more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-and-house-intelligence-panel-strike-deal-for-mueller-materials/2019/05/22/f8f2380a-7c7e-11e9-8ede-f4abf521ef17_story.html?utm_term=.c4e2ef68198e
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeadEyeDick
Dec 2018
3,326
2,485
Wisconsin
I'll believe it when I see it. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I saw Schiff made this agreement and immediately thought 'like a fiddle'
 
  • Like
Reactions: GluteusMaximus
Mar 2019
2,574
591
Texas
I hope that all those confused people wanting this to be released to the public understand that that is against the law and any leaks will be prosecuted.

There has been so much confusion over this they all need a class in how and why stuff will stay classified and this is just the over site everyone wanted. if anything out of the ordinary is found there are proper ways for it to be brought to the floor and msm leaks is not the answer.

This seems like a good thing if it all comes together.
 
Dec 2018
3,326
2,485
Wisconsin
I hope that all those confused people wanting this to be released to the public understand that that is against the law and any leaks will be prosecuted.

There has been so much confusion over this they all need a class in how and why stuff will stay classified and this is just the over site everyone wanted. if anything out of the ordinary is found there are proper ways for it to be brought to the floor and msm leaks is not the answer.

This seems like a good thing if it all comes together.
I'm assuming you mean it's against the law for Grand Jury testimony to be released to the public. Let's clear this up:

It. Is. Not. Against. The. Law.

Rule 6(E) regarding Grand Jury Testimony:
Rule 6. The Grand Jury

(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.
 
Mar 2019
2,574
591
Texas
I'm assuming you mean it's against the law for Grand Jury testimony to be released to the public. Let's clear this up:

It. Is. Not. Against. The. Law.

Rule 6(E) regarding Grand Jury Testimony:
Rule 6. The Grand Jury

(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.
It is against the law if it is not done through proper channels. Since rule 6e was evoked and 50 usc 3092 states that the info can go to intelligence committees that means they can not leak that info to other members not in the loop unless it is through proper procedure which is laid out in what you just posted.

In other words nadler can not receive the info of the investigation and then turn around and just hand it off to others unless he follows procedures or a judge intervenes.

The info is for them to review not to disseminate without proper cause.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,302
29,590
La La Land North
This part of the OP gives me some hope:

He warned that the subpoena “will remain in effect and will be enforced should the Department fail to comply with the full document request.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeadEyeDick