Court Ruling Implies That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report

National Review Online ^ | April 5, 2019 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[MayflowerMadam]

“Court Ruling IMPLIES That Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report”

“This means Attorney General Barr MUST redact grand-jury material from the Mueller report”

So, is it “implies”, or “must”?

[dp0622]

Someone please put this into plain English for the unwashed masses like myself and in just a few sentences :)

Or just say GOOD or BAD for us :)

[Louis Foxwell]

Congress, after all, has the power to legislate an amendment to Rule 6(e) that would permit disclosure of grand-jury materials from a special counsel investigation to appropriate congressional committees.

Look for just such an exception to be tucked into some obscure bill naming a Post Office.

[Hambone 1934]

Great ruling...Watch dems heads explode when huge portions of Mueller report are off limits to them....

[Bratch]

House Democrats

[dp0622]

great!!

WHY’D HE TYPE ALL THIS WHEN HE COULD HAVE SAID WHAT YOU DID!! :)

[gov_bean_ counter]

Democrats,

Truth vs issue...

[AndyJackson]

“implies” is the wrong word. The statement should be, under the binding precedent established in McKeever v. Barr, it is mandatory that AJ Barr redact GJ testimony and all statements about that testimony from the report.

[Redleg Duke]

A court ruling that limits the authority of a judge???

Astounding!

[AndyJackson]

What he said in somewhat more detail is that the Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure, which have the force of federal statute, include Rule 6, which covers grand jury proceedings. Under Rule 6, only certain limited disclosures of GJ proceeding are permitted [to other law enforcement authorities, basically for a legitimate purpose in enforcing the law, e.g. prevent a murder that the GJ discovered is about to take place].

The question before the court was whether a Federal Judge has the discretion to ignore that rule. The majority of the panel ruled that a judge has no such authority to circumvent or exceed his statutory powers under Rule 6 and that disclosures beyond what are provided for are prohibited (else why have the rule at all).

Basically the court held that rule of law prevails over rule of judge's arbitrary determinations.

[AU72]

Democrats want to data mine for “orange man bad” stuff.

[AndyJackson]

Text of the Court's Ruling McKeever v Barr decided April 5, 2019.

This was decided YESTERDAY.

[dp0622]

Why the hell would they have ever had the authority to override it?!!?!?

Who even brought the suit!!!

Geez!!

And thanks.

i was on foreman on a special grand jury.

i was told in no uncertain terms that if I speak of it EVER, up until death, I can go to prison.

[Wuli]

Making it simple:

Barr must redact grand jury testimony (cross out) that has entered the Mueller report, before giving the report to Congress (to anyone), thus the Democrats will not be able to read direct grand jury testimony in the report and INFER their own meaning (innuendo) from it. They will be left with ONLY Mueller’s words and his bare conclusion that he found no evidence of collusion.

[dp0622]

:)

more good news.

[oldtech]

Anyone who can understand that is at least several steps ahead of me. Why can’t it be written plainly so people can understand it? When things are redacted from a report, it would seem to make parts of it somewhat meaningless.

[Vermont Lt]

Don’t need a court case. The statute under which Mueller worked states that you have to abide by existing DOJ rules.

[A Formerly Proud Canadian]

The Dhimmis, being Dhimmis, will freak out when vast swaths of the report are redacted. They will seek a Dhimmi judge to ‘order’ the release. The government will immediately (and rightly so) appeal this faux ruling. The Dhimmis will scream, “What are you trying to hide?!?!”

This will continue for months, the press focusing on this. Eventually, it will make it’s way to the Supreme Court, where they will rule that the redaction must remain. The Dhimmis and the media (but I repeat myself) will claim that the court was fixed, colluding with that dastardly ‘Drumpf’. This will continue into the election.

Never forget that ‘feelings’ trump ‘truth’, that ‘truth’ is relative. This is the ‘brave new world’ we live in now. May God have mercy on us.

[AndyJackson]

The Court's ruling cited the Supreme Court's 1979 decision Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, quoting verbatim:

t secrecy safeguards vital interests in (1) preserving the willingness and candor of witnesses called before the grand jury; (2) not alerting the target of an investigation who might otherwise flee or interfere with the grand jury; and (3) preserving the rights of a suspect who might later be exonerated.

The decision further quotes the SC decision which stated:

[b]oth the Congress and [the Supreme] Court have consistently stood ready to defend [grand jury secrecy] against unwarranted intrusion. In the absence of a clear indication in a statute or Rule, we must always be reluctant to conclude that a breach of this secrecy has been authorized.

As we have said before, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) “makes quite clear that disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury is the exception and not the rule” and “sets forth in precise terms to whom, under what circumstances and on what conditions grand jury information may be disclosed.”