Posted on 01/09/2019 5:12:59 PM PST by yesthatjallen
A nonprofit that fights on behalf of journalists has asked the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., to make public filings in the fight over a mystery grand jury subpoena thought to be tied to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
In a 33-page motion filed Wednesday, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argued that the First Amendment and common law require at least some documents to be made available to the public.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last month upheld a lower court order that found a foreign government-owned company in contempt and imposed a $50,000 fine per day for its failure to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena for information.
The subpoena, related filings and court proceedings have been kept under seal. As the committee noted, the public only learned about the parties’ arguments and got a limited and tailored account of the underlying facts when the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling.
While the court may be trying to keep the grand jury secret, the committee said that alone is not sufficient to override the public’s right to see all documents, including the transcript of oral arguments.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to stay the lower court ruling that held the company in contempt and announced that it has received a request for permission to file an appeal under seal.
Why is this so super secret?
Shhhh. It is a really dangerous precedent. They do not want you to know. If it took hold, court proceedings could become SECRET and exclude the citizens and media.
Rule 6(e)(5) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the sealing of any court proceedings that would reveal matters pending before an ongoing grand jury. The idea is that, if someone is investigated but ultimately not indicted, their privacy and reputation should be protected.
In fact, a lot is known about this case, just not the identity of the subpoenaed party. Briefs and court opinions which are publicly filed show that: (1) Mueller subpoenaed a corporation [we don't know its name]; (2) that corporation is owned by the government of a foreign country [we don't know which one, but I'd guess Russia]; (3) the corporation claimed it was immune from the subpoena under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; and (4) the courts have rejected that defense.
Unless it involves Top Secret super spy stuff, We the People should have access to it. Anything with private citizen Trump is certainly not eyes only.
Yep.
This won’t remain unknown unless the government surrenders on it. That’s an indication right there that the ultimate target is Trump. Ordinary spying or corruption involving foreign nationals is handled much differently.
What was the secret ruling?
The last time I heard about this reporter’s group it was in this:
FBI admits agent impersonated AP reporter
Fox News / AP ^ | 11-7-2014
FBI Director James Comey says an agent impersonated an Associated Press reporter during a 2007 criminal investigation, a ruse the news organization says could undermine its credibility. In a letter to the Justice Department last week, the AP requested Holder’s word that the DOJ would never again misrepresent itself as the AP ...
Great post. I suspect it was one of those silly indictments where mueller and his clowns thought it would be a default judgment. The Russian company answered and envokrd the statute. No there there. MSM is so desperate now. Everything is falling apart and Trump is winning on the WALL. You will
Have many left wing suicides now.
Great post. I suspect it was one of those silly indictments where mueller and his clowns thought it would be a default judgment. The Russian company answered and envokrd the statute. No there there. MSM is so desperate now. Everything is falling apart and Trump is winning on the WALL. You will
Have many left wing suicides now.
SEATTLE (AP) — The FBI’s creation of a fake news story and impersonation of an Associated Press reporter during a criminal investigation undermine media credibility, blur the lines between law enforcement and the press and raise questions about whether the agency followed its own guidelines, free press advocates say.
In a letter to The New York Times on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey said an agent “portrayed himself as an employee of The Associated Press” in 2007 to help catch a 15-year-old suspect accused of making bomb threats at a high school near Olympia, Washington. It was publicized last week that the FBI forged an AP story during its investigation, but Comey’s letter revealed the agency went further and had an agent pretend to be a reporter for the wire service.
Comey said the agent posing as an AP reporter asked the suspect to review a fake AP article about threats and cyberattacks directed at the school, “to be sure that the anonymous suspect was portrayed fairly.”
The bogus article contained a software tool that could verify Internet addresses. The suspect clicked on a link, revealing his computer’s location and Internet address, which helped agents confirm his identity.
“That technique was proper and appropriate under Justice Department and FBI guidelines at the time. Today, the use of such an unusual technique would probably require higher-level approvals than in 2007, but it would still be lawful and, in a rare case, appropriate,” Comey wrote.
Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the AP, said the FBI’s actions were “unacceptable.”
ETC...
There was no hearing, secret or otherwise.
Here's what happened:
The district court held that the subpoena was enforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The subpoenaed company asked the Supreme Court for a stay (so that it wouldn't have to either comply with the subpoena or be fined for contempt while the case was appealed to SCOTUS).
Motions for a stay from the D.C. Circuit go to Chief Justice Roberts initially. Roberts granted a temporary stay, only for a few days until Mueller could respond. Like all stay motions, there was no "hearing"; Roberts read the papers in his office and wrote a one-line order.
Once Mueller responded, Roberts (as is customary when there is time to do so) referred the stay motion to the full Court. Once again, there was no "hearing." The full Court voted (with no recorded dissent) to deny a stay. (As with most stay motions, there was no opinion, just a one-line order: "Motion for stay denied.")
There was no indictment, just a subpoena ordering the foreign corporation to produce documents. (We know from the public court opinions that the corporation does business in the U.S., but is owned by a foreign government.) The corporation invoked the statute, but the courts have rejected the defense. So the corporation will either now comply, or the court will fine the heck out of it for contempt of court. (A human being who disobeys a subpoena is locked up until he complies; you can't jail a corporation, but you can fine it $5,000 a day until it complies.)
Ok . I assumed it was one of those phony indictments to make it look like they were doing something and the bad olRussians were actually using the social internet to some how bend weak minds like the democrats did with blacks in Roy Moore’s stolen election. There the dems used Russian IP #. So crude. Nothing done there.
If this made the President look bad, it would be all over all the networks. It doesn’t, therefore, no leaks forthcoming.
That SCOTUS thread did not go as far as what you wrote
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.