Decision is here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C303D80209541E01852583D3004E0F21/$file/17-5149.pdf
Members banned from this thread: evince |
Does a federal court have the authority to order disclosure of grand-jury materials if the judge decides that the interests of justice warrant doing so; or is the judge limited to the exceptions to grand-jury secrecy that are spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?
The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever ruling holds that the text of Rule 6(e) controls. Consequently, judges have no authority to authorize disclosure outside the rule.
This is significant for the Mueller report because Rule 6(e) does not contain an exception to secrecy that would permit disclosure to Congress.
The Supreme Court has long recognized the vital purposes served by grand-jury secrecy, and thus that secrecy must be protected unless there is some clear contrary indication in a statute or rule. Disclosure is the exception, not the rule.
In Rule 6(e), Congress has prescribed grand-jury secrecy and its exceptions. Those who contend that a court may permit disclosure outside the rule argue that judges had such authority before the rule was enacted. The panel majority, however, emphasized the rule’s sweeping language: Officials must refrain from disclosure “unless these rules provide otherwise.” The rule also takes pains to spell out the situations in which a judge may authorize disclosure. Plainly, the intent of the rule was to limit disclosure; were an unwritten judicial power to ignore the limitations recognized, the rule would be pointless.
The exceptions enumerated in the rule permit judges to authorize disclosure, to federal and certain non-federal officials, in order to aid in the enforcement of criminal laws. Clearly, it would be easy to conjure other worthy exceptions. Nevertheless, the panel majority observed, the Supreme Court has stressed that “not every beneficial purpose, or even every valid governmental purpose, is an appropriate reason for breaching grand jury secrecy.”
The panel rejected the claim that the D.C. Circuit’s decision in a Watergate era case, Haldeman v. Sirica (1974), permits disclosure outside the rule.
http://tinyurl.com/suck-on-this-liberals
Decision is here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C303D80209541E01852583D3004E0F21/$file/17-5149.pdf
Does anybody know why Ken Starr wasn't hired so he could ask Trump if he ever got a blow job in the White House?
(I know our conservative friends are very interested in this, ... because it's important)
Nomad (04-05-2019)
The normal members of the Board groan at Dark Soul.
Earl (04-06-2019)
This court must be in the pocket of Russia.
"It [the draft] is duty rather than slavery. I part with the author on the caviler idea that individual freedom (whatever that may be to the person) leads to nirvana, anyone older that 12 knows that is BS."
-(Midcan5)
"Allow me to masturbate my patriotism furiously and publicly at this opportunity."
-(Ib1yysguy)
"There is no 'equal opportunity' today unless the government makes it so."
-(apple0154 )
"abortion is not killing Its birth control"
-(Desh)
the entire "mueller investigation" was an act of sedition and any and all information is illegitimate. people must refuse to speak as if the damned "mueller report" is anything legitimate and is anything more than exhibit A which is evidence to expedite the execution of at least 10,000 deepstate vermin which are currently engaged in sedition within the damned deepstate and hundreds of members of congress.the "mueller report" is evidence against the damneds...DEATHTOTHEDEEPSTATE!
Even so, Come, Lord JesusI do not participate in delusion count me out
Nomad (04-05-2019)
Earl (04-06-2019)
Earl (04-06-2019)
FRCP 6(E)3(e) (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
Earl (04-06-2019)
jimmymccready (04-05-2019), Nomad (04-05-2019)
Earl (04-06-2019)
Plainly, the intent of the rule was to limit disclosure; were an unwritten judicial power to ignore the limitations recognized, the rule would be pointless.
Earl (04-06-2019)
Conclusion: The left is not pissed because Mueller found no proof of (wink, wink) COLLUSION....., its a fact you cannot find evidence of something that does not exist. What the left is pissed about is the fact that BARR...being the AG with the charged responsibility of prosecuting "procedural entrapment" refuses to indict because WISEMANS trap did not work like it worked on the STUPID (BJ BILL CLINTON) who underwent the political circus known as an IMPEAHMENT....not for receiving a blow job (sexual predatory that he is and was) having to drop trousers behind the resolute desk...but because HE was stupid enough to lie about it. You can't obstruct justice by lying if you are never directly interviewed UNDER OATH. Why? Because there was no evidence of any crime (collusion) to obstruct.
Thus, its not the "made up" charge of COLLUSION but the made up PROCEDUAL ENTRAPMENT FAILURE that has the lefts panties in a wad riding up their collective asses? After all the work (2 years)….they come up with a bucket that was dipped into a dry well. FUNNY AS HELL. Trump is smarter than a Clinton....who'd thunk it?
What the left is really concerned about.....thus the "leaking" distraction? The 12 to 24 criminal referrals that will come from the House Intelligence Committee next week for all those who DID TESTIFY UNDER OATH in the halls of congress.....and LIED under oath...just like BLOW JOB did. Felonies all around.....for all the leakers and liars.
Last edited by Ralph; 04-05-2019 at 09:43 PM.
Earl (04-06-2019)
Earl (04-06-2019)
Bookmarks