House Democrats scored a Major Legal Victory as a Federal Appeals Court Panel Granted them Permission to access Grand Jury Secrets from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia Probe.
The 2-1 Ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Upheld a Lower Court Decision in Favor of the House's Ability to See the Information Deleted from the Public Version of Mueller's Final Report.
The Justice Department could seek Review by the Full Bench of the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court.
If it stands, the Ruling would give House Lawmakers access to All the Report’s Blacked-Out Words, Phrases, Sentences, Paragraphs, and Entire Pages, nearly 1,000 Portions in all, as well as Underlying Interviews and Memos cited in Mueller’s Review.
The Democrats’ Courtroom Win, nearly a year in the making, is a symbolic Blow to Trump and his sweeping Claims that his Administration can Block Congress from Talking to Witnesses and Accessing Information.
But the Sting was largely taken Out of the Decision by the Fact it came nearly Five Weeks after the Senate Acquitted Trump on Largely Unrelated Impeachment Articles involving his Dealings with Ukraine. It also came just over a week after the House Suffered a Major Court Loss in its Drive to Force Testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, One of Mueller's Star Witnesses.
The House’s Victory Tuesday is also No Guarantee that Lawmakers will get to immediately see the Full Range of Mueller’s Evidence.
However, peeking behind the Deletions could shed further Light on the Trump Campaign's attempts to Connect with WikiLeaks, or the infamous Trump Tower Meeting between Senior Campaign Staffers and a Russian Attorney promising "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, Trump's Opponent.
On Tuesday, the Majority of the Appeals Court said the Theoretical Possibility of further Impeachment Proceedings was sufficient to Authorize the Release of the Grand Jury Secrets. Judges, according to the Majority Opinion, should Not “micromanage” the House’s need for Information in the Context of an Impeachment Investigation.
“The courts cannot tell the House how to conduct its impeachment investigation or what lines of inquiry to pursue, or how to prosecute its case before the Senate,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote in an Opinion joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. Rogers Rejected the Justice Department’s Argument that Impeachment is Not the kind of Court Proceeding where Grand Jury Materials are Routinely Available.
“The constitutional text confirms that a Senate impeachment trial is a judicial proceeding,” wrote Rogers, an Appointee of President Bill Clinton. “The term ‘judicial proceeding’ has long and repeatedly been interpreted broadly.”
Judge Neomi Rao, the Only Trump Appointee on the Panel, Dissented. She said the Lower Court had Authority to Lift the Veil of Secrecy on the Grand Jury Materials, but Not to Order the Justice Department to Disclose them to Congress. “The Committee can point to no statutory entitlement to this information and the judicial relief it seeks is contrary to historical practice and the separation of powers,” Rao wrote.
Rao also repeatedly cited the Senate’s Decision to Acquit Trump on Two Articles of Impeachment last month as a Development that could Diminish the House’s need to Access Mueller’s Evidence. “A reasonable observer might wonder why we are deciding this case at this time. After all, the Committee sought these materials preliminary to an impeachment proceeding and the Senate impeachment trial has concluded,” Rao wrote. “Why is this controversy not moot? The majority simply turns a blind eye to these very public events.”
Rao also Found fodder for her Dissent in the Sluggishness of her Own Court, which Received the Appeal in October 2019. The House’s Petition in District Court was filed back in July 2019. “The Senate trial of President Trump concluded more than a month before publication of this opinion,” wrote Rao. “Even when acting on an expedited basis, courts cannot move with the alacrity and speed of the political process. And indeed, that process has moved on without our decisions.”
But the Majority Rejected her Position, noting that the House had Authorized its Committees to Pursue All Ongoing Impeachment Investigations, including a Judiciary Committee Probe related to Mueller, and could consider Additional Charges against Trump if the New Evidence warrants it.
This Case does Not involve a Suit between the Political Branches over Executive-Branch Documents or Testimony. Instead, it involves an Application for Access to Records of the Grand Jury, whose Disclosure the District court has traditionally controlled.
The Justice Department did Permit House Members to see Most of the Redacted Information in the Mueller Report, but Insisted that it could Not Share the Grand Jury Information Absent a Court Order. Democrats pressed Attorney General Bill Barr to seek such an Order, but he Declined and instead Fought the House in Court. While Justice Department Officials began Sharing some of the underlying FBI Interview Reports, known as 302s, with Congress, that Process bogged down after the House Formalized its Impeachment Inquiry last October 2019 and the Trump White House Stopped Cooperating with Impeachment-Related Investigations.
House Democrats had Repeatedly pressed the D.C. Circuit to address the McGahn and Mueller Cases before their Impeachment Proceedings Concluded.
How the Democrats will actually make Practical Use of their New Win remains Unclear. During Impeachment, the House made Only a glancing Reference to the Mueller Probe in the Two Articles seeking Trump’s Removal from Office over his Alleged Attempts to Pressure Ukraine’s Leader into Announcing the Launching of Investigations into his Political Rival.
But House Lawyers also told the Federal Judges that Lawmakers could still Pass Additional Articles of Impeachment based on the information they Secure from the Mueller Case, a possibility that always seemed Remote and appears increasingly Unlikely as the November Election nears.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
